Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28870)
Facts:
Amado D. Tolentino v. Social Security Commission, Gilberto Teodoro and Angel Penano, G.R. Nos. L-28870 and L-39149, September 06, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Makasiar, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Amado D. Tolentino was a long‑time employee of the Social Security System (SSS) who, after successive promotions, held the position of Technical Assistant (Executive Assistant). In May 1966 the Administrator filed formal charges against Tolentino for dishonesty and electioneering; he was placed on preventive suspension on July 6, 1966, investigated by a committee from July 12 to September 7, 1966, and on September 15, 1966 the Social Security Commission promulgated Resolution No. 1003 dismissing him from the service effective the date of his preventive suspension.
On November 10, 1966 Tolentino filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Branch IX, Quezon City) a petition with preliminary mandatory injunction seeking to annul Resolution No. 1003 on the ground that, under the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260), disciplinary jurisdiction over civil service employees lay exclusively with the Commissioner of Civil Service. The SSS respondents pleaded, among other defenses, that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the Commission because the Commission ranked with the CFI in its quasi‑judicial functions. On June 5, 1967 the CFI dismissed Tolentino’s petition for lack of jurisdiction; the court relied on precedent treating the Commission as a quasi‑judicial body of like rank. Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 1, 1967, and he brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
Separately, on May 7, 1968 the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) filed, on motion of the SSS Employees’ Labor Union – NLU and Tolentino, Case No. 5042‑ULP charging the SSS and Administrator Gilberto Teodoro with unfair labor practices arising from Tolentino’s dismissal. The SSS denied the charges and asserted that Tolentino had been properly dismissed after due administrative investigation. On March 5, 1974 the CIR found the SSS and Teodoro guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered Tolentino reinstated with back wages; the CIR en banc denied reconsideration on August 13, 1974. The SSS and Teodoro then petitioned for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The Court consolidated the two cases (resolution of January 13, 1975). The main legal question presented was jurisdiction: whether the Social Security Commission (and relatedly the CIR) had the statutory authority in 1966–1968 to investigate, decide and impose disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal, upon SSS employees like Tolentino. Petitioners invoked the Soc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- At the time Resolution No. 1003 was promulgated (September 15, 1966), did the Social Security Commission have jurisdiction to investigate and impose disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal, on its employee Amado Tolentino?
- At the time the unfair labor practice case (CIR Case No. 5042‑ULP) was commenced (May 7, 1968), did the Court of Industrial Relations have jurisdiction to decide the suit against the SSS and its Administrator arising from Tolentino’s dismissal?
- If R.A. No. 6040 purports to vest original disciplinary jurisdiction in department/agency heads or to exempt certain GOCC employees from the Civil Service, is that statute applicab...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)