Case Digest (G.R. No. 222557)
Facts:
The case involves Engr. Juan B. Berces (petitioner), who served as the City Planning and Development Officer and Head of the City Planning and Development Office of the Local Government Unit of Tabaco City. On August 5, 2011, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Berces, along with two other employees, was caught by Police Superintendent Joel T. Tada having a drinking session inside the City Planning and Development Office. This incident was reported to Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro, who subsequently received an apology letter from Berces on August 8, 2011, explaining that he was celebrating his 15th anniversary as a public officer. However, on August 31, 2011, Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a complaint against Berces and his companions for violating Memorandum Orders No. 01 and No. 02, which prohibited drinking in government offices.
In his Counter-Affidavit, Berces acknowledged a lapse in judgment but insisted that he did not intend to violate the directives. He argued that his 15 ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 222557)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
Petitioner Engr. Juan B. Berces was the City Planning and Development Officer and Head of the City Planning and Development Office of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Tabaco City.
Incident Leading to the Complaint:
On August 5, 2011, at around 8:30 p.m., petitioner, along with two other employees, was caught having a drinking session inside the City Planning and Development Office by Police Superintendent Joel T. Tada, Chief of Police of Tabaco City. The incident reached Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro, who subsequently filed a complaint against petitioner and his companions for violating LGU-Tabaco City's Memorandum Orders (M.O.) No. 01 and No. 02, which prohibited drinking liquor inside the city hall.
Petitioner’s Defense:
In his Counter-Affidavit, petitioner admitted to a lapse in judgment but explained that the drinking session was in celebration of his 15th anniversary as a public officer. He emphasized that this was a solitary error in an otherwise unblemished 15-year career in government service.
Administrative Charges and Penalty:
Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a Formal Charge against petitioner for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. On February 13, 2012, Mayor Lagman-Luistro issued an Order dismissing petitioner from service, with penalties including cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government.
CSC’s Initial Ruling:
Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which downgraded his liability to Simple Misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension instead of dismissal. The CSC found that the act had no direct relation to his official duties and lacked corrupt or wrongful intent.
Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration:
Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC, seeking to reinstate the penalty of dismissal. However, after the May 2013 elections, Mayor Maria Josefa V. Demetriou replaced Mayor Lagman-Luistro and withdrew the Motion for Reconsideration.
CSC’s Final Ruling:
Despite the withdrawal, the CSC issued Resolution No. 1301575, granting Mayor Lagman-Luistro’s Motion for Reconsideration and reinstating the penalty of dismissal.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA):
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy. The CA ruled that petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43.
Issue:
- Whether petitioner was correctly found guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from service, along with its accessory penalties.
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of petitioner.
Procedural Considerations:
The Court held that a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari was not the proper remedy to assail the CSC’s decision. The correct remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43. However, the Court relaxed the procedural rules in the interest of justice, given the importance of the case and the potential miscarriage of justice.Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration:
The Court ruled that Mayor Demetriou, as the successor of Mayor Lagman-Luistro, had the authority to withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration. Consequently, CSC Decision No. 130159, which downgraded petitioner’s liability to Simple Misconduct, had already attained finality. CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which reinstated the penalty of dismissal, was declared null and void for violating the doctrine of immutability of judgment.Nature of Petitioner’s Act:
The Court found that petitioner’s act of drinking liquor inside the office, while improper, did not constitute Grave Misconduct. It was more appropriately classified as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. However, the finding of Simple Misconduct was upheld due to the finality of CSC Decision No. 130159.
Ratio:
Finality of Judgments:
A judgment becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal or motion for reconsideration. Once final, it cannot be modified or altered, even if the modification is meant to correct an error. CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which vacated CSC Decision No. 130159, was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and is therefore void.Authority of Successor Public Officers:
When a public officer ceases to hold office, the successor has the authority to continue or withdraw from any pending actions initiated by the predecessor. Mayor Demetriou’s withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration was valid and binding.Relaxation of Procedural Rules:
While procedural rules must generally be followed, they may be relaxed in the interest of justice, especially when a strict application would result in a miscarriage of justice.Classification of Misconduct:
Misconduct must be directly related to the performance of official duties to constitute an administrative offense. Petitioner’s act, while inappropriate, did not involve corruption or a willful intent to violate the law, and thus did not amount to Grave Misconduct.
Final Disposition:
The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s Resolutions and declared CSC Resolution No. 1301575 void. CSC Decision No. 130159, which found petitioner guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension, was reinstated.