G.R. No. 169931 - Sison vs. Morales-Malaca

Dr. Evangeline P. Morales-Malaca, then Assistant Director of the Ospital ng Maynila, filed a complaint before the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR).
The complaint was against Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison and Antonio Fernando for grave misconduct and abuse of authority, and against Dr. Arellano T. So for oppression, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, and gross discourtesy.

On 1 September 1998, Manila Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr. issued a Special Order designating Malaca as Special Consultant to the Mayor on Hospital Affairs.
Believing that this designation was merely an addition to her regular duties, Malaca continued to occupy her office at the hospital.
Malaca alleged that, taking advantage of his position as Secretary to the Mayor, Sison issued a Special Order on 14 September 1998 designating Dr. Roberto M. Zaide as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Office of the Assistant Hospital Director.
Sison allegedly failed to furnish Malaca with a copy of the said Special Order, even though she was reporting for work at the office of the Chief of Staff of the City Mayor of Manila.
Malaca further claimed that Dr. So, without notifying her, hired a locksmith to forcibly open her office door when she was still in possession of the office.
The complaint asserted that So and Fernando conspired to fabricate an ante-dated Memorandum (dated 5 April 1999) to suggest that Fernando, as Manila City Administrator, had directed:

Malaca’s designation was modified when on 26 August 1998 Mayor Atienza issued a Special Order relieving her of her duties as Assistant Director.
The Special Order issued by Sison (14 September 1998) was valid and done in the regular performance of his official duty.
Fernando maintained that the Memorandum dated 5 April 1999 was issued pursuant to Section 480, Article X of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code) and within his authority as City Administrator.
So contended that his actions, including the use of a locksmith and involvement of police, were executed following Fernando’s order and in response to Malaca’s non-compliance in surrendering the office.

There was no evidence indicating that the orders were issued in excess of lawful authority.
Malaca failed to present prima facie evidence of damage resulting from the actions taken by petitioners.
Although petitioners were admonished to exercise more circumspection in their official duties, they were not held liable for the grave charges originally alleged.

On appeal, the CSC affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Malaca then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Although the 14 September 1998 Special Order was valid, its implementation was irregular due to failure to furnish a copy to Malaca.
There was no justification for Fernando’s issuance of the Memorandum directing the forcible entry into Malaca’s office.
There was evidence suggesting an attempt to deprive Malaca of her subsistence allowance for the months of September, October, and November 1998, despite the paperwork being prepared.

Consequently, petitioners were found guilty of simple misconduct and discourtesy in the course of their official duties, with penalties imposed including a fine equivalent to two months’ salary and a reprimand.

Petitioners sought reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution of 27 September 2005.
The present petition for review thus arises from these contested administrative actions and penalties imposed on the petitioners.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioners administratively liable for simple misconduct and discourtesy in the course of official duties.

Specifically, whether punishing a civil servant for misconduct and discourtesy in one administrative proceeding is proper, considering the absence of a double charge for the same act.

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from a CSC decision that exonerated or absolved the petitioners.

This raises the question of whether an issue not raised in the lower proceedings may be considered on appeal, touching on principles of estoppel and procedural waiver.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that petitioners failed to observe due process in furnishing copies of orders and memoranda, thereby violating Malaca’s rights as a public servant.