Title
Tolentino vs. Social Security Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-28870
Decision Date
Sep 6, 1985
Amado Tolentino, an SSS employee, challenged his dismissal for dishonesty and electioneering, arguing jurisdiction lay with the Civil Service Commission, not SSS or CIR. SC ruled in his favor, remanding the case to CSC and nullifying CIR's decision.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28870)

Facts:

  • Facts in G.R. No. L-28870
    • Employment Background
1.1. Petitioner Amado D. Tolentino was employed at the Social Security System (SSS) as an Editorial Assistant before April 14, 1961, with a salary of P2,400.00 per annum, his appointment having been duly approved by the Civil Service Commission. 1.2. He received a salary promotion on April 14, 1961, increasing his salary from P2,400.00 to P2,580.00 per annum, effective March 1, 1961, which was also duly approved. 1.3. On March 16, 1962, his designation was changed from Editorial Assistant to Credit Analyst; the appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission. 1.4. Following his resignation to run for a municipal position in 1961, he was reappointed as Credit Analyst on June 15, 1964, with a copy of the appointment duly attached. 1.5. He took his Oath of Office on June 16, 1964, as evidenced by the certified form (C.S. Form No. 32). 1.6. On May 11, 1965, his designation changed from Credit Analyst to Technical Assistant (Executive Assistant) with an accompanying salary increase from P2,580.00 to P4,200.00 per annum.
  • Disciplinary Charges and Proceedings
2.1. While holding the position of Technical Assistant, on May 23 and 24, 1966, respondent Administrator filed charges against him for dishonesty and electioneering. 2.2. Petitioner answered the charges in two separate letters dated July 2, 1966, denying the allegations. 2.3. On July 6, 1966, he was placed on preventive suspension and received a memorandum from Acting Administrator Reynaldo Gregorio indicating that his answer was unsatisfactory, and a formal investigation was to be initiated by a committee. 2.4. The investigation officially began on July 12, 1966, and terminated on September 7, 1966, with the petitioner being formally dismissed from the service as communicated in a letter dated September 20, 1966, referencing Resolution No. 1003.
  • Procedural History in G.R. No. L-28870
3.1. On November 10, 1966, Tolentino filed a petition for a preliminary mandatory injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Quezon City, Branch IX) questioning the validity of Resolution No. 1003. 3.2. The petition was premised on the argument that the power to discipline civil service employees was exclusively vested in the Civil Service Commissioner under the Civil Service Act of 1959, not in the Social Security Commission, as the latter is of the same rank as the courts exercising quasi-judicial powers. 3.3. On June 5, 1967, the lower court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and later, on December 1, 1967, denied a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner.
  • Facts in G.R. No. L-39149
    • Initiation of the Unfair Labor Suit
1.1. On May 7, 1968, the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) filed a complaint on motion of the SSS Employees Labor Union – NLU and Amado Tolentino charging the SSS and its head, Gilberto Teodoro, with committing unfair labor practices. 1.2. The complaint specifically contested the disciplinary action imposed on Tolentino and the procedures followed by the Social Security Commission.
  • Proceedings and Decision of the Court of Industrial Relations
2.1. On May 16, 1968, in its answer, the SSS denied the charges and asserted that Tolentino had been dismissed following charges of dishonesty which had been thoroughly investigated. 2.2. On March 5, 1974, the CIR ruled that the SSS and Gilberto Teodoro were guilty of unfair labor practice, ordering Tolentino’s reinstatement with back wages. 2.3. The en banc CIR later denied a motion for reconsideration on August 13, 1974.
  • Consolidation and Jurisdictional Question
3.1. On January 13, 1975, the case was consolidated with G.R. No. L-28870 by the Supreme Court since both appeals involved the same parties and substantially similar issues concerning disciplinary action and jurisdiction over such matters. 3.2. The consolidated issues questioned whether the Social Security Commission and its officers, particularly the department head, had the jurisdiction to impose disciplinary sanctions on its own employees, given that the power to discipline was exclusively vested in the Civil Service Commissioner under the Civil Service Act of 1959.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Authority
    • Whether the Social Security Commission, being of the same rank as the courts in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, had the jurisdiction to issue orders affecting administrative and disciplinary cases involving its employees.
    • Whether disciplinary actions taken by the Commission, such as Resolution No. 1003 dismissing petitioner Tolentino, were valid given that the exclusive disciplinary authority over civil service employees resided with the Civil Service Commissioner under the Civil Service Act of 1959.
  • Validity and Retroactivity of Statutory Amendments
    • Whether the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 6040, which extended the scope of the exempt service and altered disciplinary procedures, could be applied retroactively to cases adjudicated prior to its enactment, particularly concerning the disciplinary powers exercised in the subject case.
  • Separation of Powers and Administrative Recommendations
    • Whether the actions taken by the head of the Social Security Commission, interpreted as recommendations to be ultimately decided by the Civil Service Commissioner, can be considered as the final imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
    • Whether administrative circulars attempting to broaden the scope of the exempt service were valid in view of the provisions of the Civil Service Act and the Constitution.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms