G.R. No. 167726 - Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals

Roberto M. Villanueva, a married Legislative Assistant II of the Cashiering and Administrative Records Division of the House of Representatives, was charged with grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The charges arose from an incident on 16 October 1997 when security personnel, Frederick Maramba and Orencio Castillo, observed Villanueva in an office with a female who was later identified as Elizabeth Navarro-Arguelles—daughter and confidential assistant of Representative Constantino H. Navarro, Jr.—both found naked and in an compromising position.
The observation was recorded in the Official Log Book and detailed in a Spot Inspection Report, prompting immediate action.

On 24 November 1997, following a complaint by Villanueva’s immediate supervisor, Jose Ma. Antonio B. Tuano, the House Disciplinary Board initiated proceedings against him.
Initially, after a hearing, the Board found him guilty and imposed a penalty of one (1) year suspension without pay, accompanied by a warning of harsher penalties for any future infraction.
Upon Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration, the Board subsequently increased the penalty to dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits, a decision later affirmed by Speaker Manuel B. Villar, Jr. and upheld despite a subsequent motion for reconsideration by Villanueva that was denied by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.

Villanueva appealed the House Disciplinary Board’s decision before the Civil Service Commission.
On 12 April 2002, the Commission modified the penalty by holding Villanueva guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and imposed a penalty of one-year suspension.
The Commission ordered his reinstatement to his former position, except that back salaries and other benefits would not be awarded since he was not totally exonerated.
A motion for reconsideration by the House, seeking the re-imposition of dismissal, and a partial reconsideration by Villanueva, including a claim for benefits for the period January 1999 to February 2001, were both denied in later Commission resolutions.

Instead of filing a timely appeal from the Commission’s resolution—despite having a fifteen (15) day period—the House opted to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on 20 January 2003.
The House contended that an appeal would not be a speedy or adequate remedy because of the executory nature of the Commission’s decision, arguing that judicial employees and legislative employees should be held to equally stringent standards of morality.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 27 August 2003 and its Resolution dated 29 March 2005, granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the Commission’s modifications, and reinstated the dismissal penalty imposed by the House Disciplinary Board.
Villanueva then filed a petition for review, arguing that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari substituting for a lost appeal and that the Commission acted within its authority.

Villanueva maintained that his misconduct did not relate to his official functions and was a personal failing, warranting a penalty of suspension rather than dismissal.
He further argued that the House had alternative remedies available, such as obtaining an injunction or seeking an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In contrast, the House argued that the execution of the Commission’s decision was immediate and that the remedy of certiorari was the only available avenue given the lapse in filing a proper appeal.

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an acceptable substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal when an appeal is the prescribed remedy.
Whether the House’s failure to file an appeal within the required fifteen (15) day period precluded its use of certiorari as an alternative remedy.

Whether Villanueva’s misconduct, which involved an illicit affair conducted within the premises of his official workplace, should be classified as grave misconduct linked to his official functions, or as disgraceful and immoral conduct pertaining mainly to his personal life.
Whether the offense, despite its reprehensible moral implications, affected his performance of official duties to such an extent as to justify a penalty of dismissal.

Whether the penalty imposed by the Civil Service Commission—a suspension of one (1) year—is consistent with the definitions and elements of misconduct under the applicable rules and laws.
Whether the Commission acted without grave abuse of discretion in reducing the penalty from dismissal to suspension.