Case Digest (G.R. No. 160573)
Facts:
The case involves Grace A. Basmayor as the petitioner and Loida B. Atencio as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on September 19, 2000, when the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Regional Office No. XI, under the direction of Juanito C. Cueva, notified Basmayor, a computer operator, that she had accumulated thirty-one and a half days of absence without official leave, violating Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 41 s. 1998. Basmayor was instructed to explain her absences by October 2, 2000, with a warning that failure to do so would result in her implied resignation. On October 18, 2000, she received another memorandum stating her service would be terminated effective October 3, 2000, followed by a formal notice on November 3, 2000, confirming her removal from the rolls.
On November 13, 2000, Basmayor filed a complaint against Atencio, alleging falsification of an official document, gross neglect of duty, inef...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 160573)
Facts:
Employment and Absence Issue:
- Petitioner Grace A. Basmayor, a computer operator at TESDA Regional Office No. XI, was informed via a memorandum dated September 19, 2000, that she had accumulated 31.5 days of absence without official leave (AWOL), violating CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998. She was advised to explain her absences by October 2, 2000, or face implied resignation and removal from the rolls.
- On October 18, 2000, Basmayor received another memorandum stating her termination effective October 3, 2000. A third memorandum dated November 3, 2000, formally confirmed her removal from the rolls.
Allegations of Forgery:
- Basmayor claimed that when she attempted to explain her absences on October 2, 2000, TESDA Regional Director Juanito C. Cueva was unavailable. She alleged that respondent Loida B. Atencio, Administrative Officer V, forged Cueva’s signature on the November 3, 2000, memorandum, as Cueva was reportedly in Australia at the time.
Administrative Complaint:
- On November 13, 2000, Basmayor filed a complaint with the CSC Regional Office No. XI against Atencio for falsification of official documents, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, and dishonesty. The complaint was dismissed for lack of a certification of non-forum shopping. An amended complaint was also dismissed for the same reason.
CSC Proceedings:
- The CSC Chairman granted Basmayor’s appeal and ordered the CSCRO No. XI to investigate. The CSCRO No. XI found no prima facie case against Atencio and dismissed the complaint. Basmayor’s petition for reinstatement was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the proper forum was the TESDA grievance committee.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals:
- Basmayor appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition for procedural defects, including failure to attach an original copy of the CSC Resolution and lack of a concise statement of facts and issues. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issue:
- Whether TESDA Regional Director Cueva was effectively absent, rendering the November 3, 2000, memorandum invalid.
- Whether the certification by Director Cueva, stating he instructed Atencio to issue the memorandum, is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) should have been impleaded as a respondent in the case.
Ruling:
On the Validity of the Memorandum:
- The Court found no merit in Basmayor’s claim that the memorandum was invalid due to Cueva’s alleged absence. The CSCRO No. XI and CSC Central Office had already determined that Atencio issued the memorandum upon Cueva’s instructions, and there was no forgery.
On the Admissibility of the Certification:
- The Court declined to re-evaluate the probative value of Cueva’s certification, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts. The CSC’s findings, supported by the records, were accorded finality.
On Impleading the CSC:
- The Court agreed with Basmayor that the CSC need not be impleaded as a respondent, as Rule 43 of the Rules of Court does not require the lower court or agency to be impleaded in appeals.
On Procedural Defects:
- The Court upheld the dismissal of Basmayor’s petition by the Court of Appeals for procedural defects, including failure to comply with Rule 43 requirements. The petition also failed to raise any reversible errors committed by the appellate court.
Ratio:
Finality of Administrative Findings:
- The findings of administrative bodies, such as the CSC, are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The Court will not re-examine factual determinations made by these bodies.
Procedural Compliance:
- Strict compliance with procedural rules, such as Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, is mandatory. Failure to comply with these rules, including the requirement to attach original documents and provide a concise statement of facts, is grounds for dismissal.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
- The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in petitions for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. Mixed questions of fact and law, such as the validity of the memorandum and the admissibility of evidence, are not reviewable.
Impleading Lower Courts or Agencies:
- Under Rule 43, it is not necessary to implead the lower court or agency that rendered the assailed decision in an appeal.