Title
Supreme Court
Civil Service Commission vs. Sojor
Case
G.R. No. 168766
Decision Date
May 22, 2008
Henry Sojor, CVPC president, faced CSC administrative complaints for alleged misconduct. SC ruled CSC has concurrent jurisdiction with BOR over university presidents, affirming accountability under civil service laws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168766)

Facts of the Case

Henry A. Sojor was appointed president of CVPC by then-President Corazon Aquino in 1991. Under R.A. No. 8292, a Board of Trustees (BOT) assumed governance over CVPC and appointed Sojor as president for fixed terms. After CVPC’s conversion to NORSU under R.A. No. 9299, the governing body became the Board of Regents (BOR). Three administrative complaints charging misconduct and nepotism were filed against Sojor before the CSC Regional Office. He argued that as a presidential appointee, and a non-career civil servant, CSC had no jurisdiction over him; disciplinary authority rested exclusively with the Office of the President or the university's governing board.

CSC’s Position and Resolution

The Civil Service Commission held that Sojor was not a presidential appointee but a non-career official appointed by the BOT/BOR, thus falling within the CSC’s disciplinary jurisdiction. CSC exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the BOT/BOR and denied Sojor’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The CSC justified its authority under the Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807) and 1987 Constitution, which vest disciplinary authority over all civil servants and officials, whether career or non-career. Sojor was preventively suspended, and formal investigation into the complaints was authorized by the CSC.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Sojor, declaring CSC's exercise of jurisdiction over the university president as an encroachment on the academic freedom and the exclusive disciplinary power of the BOT/BOR. The court held that the power to appoint includes exclusive power to remove and discipline university officials, relying on provisions of R.A. No. 9299 and the exclusive administrative power vested in the BOR. The CA permanently enjoined the CSC from proceeding with the investigation.

Issues Presented

The main issues were:

  1. Whether the CSC has disciplinary jurisdiction over the president of a state university appointed by the governing board, or whether such jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the board.
  2. Whether the CSC’s assumption of jurisdiction violated the constitutionally protected principle of academic freedom.

Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission Under the 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution entrusts the CSC with jurisdiction over the entire civil service, defined to include all branches, agencies, subdivisions, instrumentalities of government, and government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. This jurisdiction covers both career and non-career service positions, with non-career officials characterized by appointments made without the required civil service examinations and tenure limited by law. The CSC’s jurisdiction extends to third-level officials, including university presidents not appointed directly by the President of the Philippines but by a governing board, recognizing them as non-career civil servants under civil service laws and rules.

Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Board of Regents and the CSC

Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. Nos. 8292 and 9299 respectively, confer broad administrative powers on the governing boards of state colleges and universities, including the power to remove and discipline faculty members and officials "for cause" following due process. However, these statutes do not expressly limit CSC’s disciplinary jurisdiction over these officials. Under established jurisprudence, where two government bodies have power over the same matter, their jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive, unless the law expressly states otherwise. The CSC and the BOR therefore have concurrent jurisdiction to discipline a university president.

Academic Freedom and Its Limits

Academic freedom protects state universities' autonomy in academic matters such as deciding teaching methods, admission, and personnel policies. However, this principle does not confer exemption from compliance with civil service laws and rules. The charges against Sojor—nepotism, dishonesty, falsification, grave misconduct—are civil service offenses that are discrete from academic freedom. Hence, academic freedom cannot justify or shield violations of civil service discipline, and CSC’s exercise of jurisdiction does not violate this cons

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.