CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1D

CASE: DARIO V MISON

TOPIC: Review of the Decisions of the CSC by the Court
PROVISION: Art. IX, A, Sec. 7
Digest by Macky Manicad

FACTS:
- The case was brought about by the reorganization done during the time of President Corazon Aquino after
Martial Law. Actually, the reorganization process started as early as February 25, 1986, when the
President, in her first act in office, called upon "all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy
resignation(s) beginning with the members of the Supreme Court." Later on, she abolished the Batasang
Pambansa and the positions of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the 1973 Constitution.
- One of the departments she reorganized was the Ministry of Finance. Under the said Ministry, one of the
offices she reorganized was Bureau of Customs and prescribed new staffing pattern thereof.
- In line with this, incumbent Customs Commissioner Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum to provide a
procedure on implementing the executive orders by the President on reorganization.
- As a result, 394 employees of Bureau of Customs were separated from service.
- Some of those who were separated from service sought reinstatement from Reorganization Board, the
Civil Service Commission and the Court.

- On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement
-

of the 279 employees, the 279 private respondents in G.R. No. 85310 (those who sought reinstatement
from the Court).
On July 15, 1988, Commissioner Mison filed a Motion for Reconsideration w/ the CSC
On September 20, 1988, CSC denied Misons MR.
On September 23, 1988, the Copy of the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration was
received by the Bureau
October 20, 1988, Mison filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
1) WON the CSC decision has already attained finality, thus the petition for certiorari of Mison shall be
dismissed
2) WON the Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition for certiorari filed by Mison on the decision of CSC
reinstating 279 employees
HELD AND RATIO:
1) NO. The Civil Service Commission issued its Resolution denying reconsideration on September 20,
1988; a copy of this Resolution was received by the Bureau on September 23, 1988. Hence the
Bureau had until October 23, 1988 (w/in 30 days from receipt of copy as mandated by Art. IX, A, Sec.
7) to elevate the matter on certiorari to this Court. Since the Bureau's petition was filed on October 20,
1988, it was filed on time. We must reckon the thirty-day period from receipt of the order of denial.
2) YES. SC accepts Commissioner Mison petition (G.R. No. 85310) which clearly charges the Civil
Service Commission with grave abuse of discretion, a proper subject of certiorari, although it may
not have so stated in explicit terms. It should also be noted that under the new Constitution, as under
the 1973 Charter, "any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari," which, as Aratuc tells us, "technically connotes something less than saying that the
same 'shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court,' " which in turn suggests an appeal by petition for
review under Rule 45. Therefore, our jurisdiction over cases emanating from the Civil Service
Commission is limited to complaints of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, complaints that justify certiorari under Rule 65.

On the ruling on substantial issues:

1.
The President could have validly removed government employees, elected or appointed, without
cause but only before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987 (De Leon v. Esguerra,
supra; Palma-Fernandez vs. De la Paz, supra); in this connection, Section 59 (on non-reappointment of
incumbents) of Executive Order No. 127 cannot be a basis for termination;
2.
In such a case, dismissed employees shall be paid separation and retirement benefits or upon their
option be given reemployment opportunities (CONST. [1987], art. XVIII, sec. 16; Rep. Act No. 6656, sec. 9);
3.
From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose the right to reorganize the Government resulting in
the separation of career civil service employees [CONST. (1987), supra] provided, that such a
reorganization is made in good faith. (Rep. Act No. 6656, supra.)