Facts:
Petitioners
Arturo C. Corona, as Acting Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC),
Commodore Rogelio A. Dayan, as General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), and
Eufracio Segundo C. Pagunuran, as Chairman of the DOTC-Administrative Action Board (AAB), sought review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling in
CA-G.R. No. SP-17195. The controversy arose from administrative complaints involving PPA personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager, which were filed with and decided by the DOTC AAB under an administrative structure meant to address graft and corruption. On
May 15, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
Administrative Order No. 25, declaring that the
Department Secretary shall be directly responsible to the President for eradicating graft and corruption and for implementing measures to minimize or prevent graft and corruption. Pursuant thereto, former DOTC Secretary Rainerio Reyes issued
Office Order No. 88-318 creating the
Administrative Action Board to act, decide, and recommend appropriate measures on cases of administrative malfeasance, irregularities, grafts, and acts of corruption within the Department and related agencies. On
August 26, 1988, two PPA police officers filed with the AAB a complaint for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against
Leopoldo F. Bungubung, District Manager of the Port of Manila (
AAB-031-88). Bungubung challenged the AAB’s jurisdiction by a motion to dismiss, contending that the PPA General Manager had jurisdiction; the AAB denied the motion in a written order issued by Secretary Reyes upon the AAB’s recommendation. Thereafter, the PPA General Manager, Dayan, filed a separate “formal charge” against Bungubung and another, for dishonesty, inefficiency, and incompetence, willful violation of office rules, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which was docketed as
Adm. Case No. 11-01-88 and indorsed to the AAB for action. Bungubung then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for injunctive relief, and separately initiated proceedings with this Court in
G.R. Nos. 86468-69, challenging AAB jurisdiction; this Court, on
January 26, 1989, required comments and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the AAB from acting. In parallel, on the same date
August 26, 1988, Secretary Reyes himself filed with the AAB a complaint against
Cristeto E. Dinopol, then Manager of the Port of Davao (
Adm. Case No. AAB-006-88), for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. Dayan issued a preventive suspension order against Dinopol. On
September 19, 1988, Dayan also filed
Adm. Case No. AAB-016-88 against Dinopol for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Dinopol actively participated in the AAB hearings and maintained that the PPA General Manager—not the AAB—had jurisdiction under the PPA Charter, particularly
Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 857. On
October 27, 1988, the AAB rendered a decision in
AAB-006-88 finding Dinopol guilty and imposing
dismissal from the service with cause plus accessory penalties, including cancellation of eligibilities, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for re-employment. On
November 23, 1988, the AAB similarly decided
AAB-016-88, imposing the same dismissal and accessory penalties. Copies of both decisions were mailed on
December 6, 1988, and on that day Dinopol filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, challenging the AAB’s jurisdiction. The court ordered petitioners to desist from continuing the AAB proceedings and to maintain status quo, and subsequently ordered Dinopol’s reinstatement and payment of back salaries and emoluments; it also issued and enforced a preliminary injunction and threatened fines and imprisonment for non-compliance. Petitioners sought relief from this Court in
G.R. No. 86646, and on
February 2, 1989, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the lower court from implementing the injunction and status quo orders. The Bungubung and Dinopol cases were consolidated in this Court upon common jurisdictional questions and were later referred to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals resolved Bungubung and Dinopol’s motions for immediate reinstatement pending appeal, prompting petitioners—DOTC Secretary Oscar Orbos, Dayan, and Villaluz—to file in this Court in
G.R. No. 92358 for certiorari and prohibition; on
March 20, 1990, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Court of Appeals from implementing its reinstatement resolutions. On
November 21, 1990, this Court en banc granted petitioners’ petition, and on
December 17, 1990, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in
CA-G.R. No. SP-17195, ruling that the DOTC Secretary and AAB lacked jurisdiction over the administrative cases for personnel below Assistant General Manager on two grounds: (first)
Sec. 8, Art. V of the PPA Charter (P.D. No. 857) vested in the PPA General Manager, with Board approval, the power to appoint and remove personnel below that rank, and thus the special law prevailed over the general disciplinary jurisdiction provisions of the Civil Service Law; and (second) the President’s power of review under
P.D. No. 807 had been repealed by
P.D. No. 1409, which created the
Merit Systems Board in the Civil Service Commission, undermining any theory that the DOTC Secretary could exercise direct disciplinary control as alter ego of the President. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but it was denied, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
Whether the
DOTC Secretary and/or the
Administrative Action Board had jurisdiction to initiate and decide administrative cases against
PPA personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager, considering the provisions of the
PPA Charter (P.D. No. 857) and the
Civil Service Law.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: