JOHZZYLUCK R.

MAGHUYOP Jurisdiction – Case Digests

 EJERE vs MERTO, 714 SCRA 397

FACTS: The petitioner held the position of Agricultural Center Chief I in the Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist in Negros Oriental. Petitioner applied for a promotion but one Daisy Kirit was appointed.
She filed a protest before the CSC but was dismissed. Meanwhile, respondent Henry L. Merto issued
Office Order No. 008 which included petitioner’s reassignment as team leader in Lake Balanan and
Sandulot of Siaton. Petitioner field a case in RTC but before the case was heard, she moved for the
admission of a supplemental complaint in order to implead Gregorio P. Paltinca, the Officer-in-Charge
of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist, for issuing on Office Order No. 005 to amend Office
Order No. 008 re-assigning her to Barangays Balanan, Sandulot, and Jumalon. Paltinca moved to
dismiss the complaint. CSC Central Office dismissed petitioner’s appeal and RTC held the legality of
Office Order No. 008 and 005. CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Petitioner contends, among others,
that the respondents could not issue the office orders because the transfer of an employee without her
consent is arbitrary for it is tantamount to removal without cause and therefore invalid as it is violative
of her security of tenure and that the legal issue she raised could be threshed out only by a court of
justice, not by an administrative body.

ISSUE: Does CSC, as an administrative body, have jurisdiction over the reassignment of petitioner?

HELD: YES. The reassignment of the petitioner was a “personnel” and “Civil Service” matter to be
properly addressed in accordance with the rules and guidelines prescribed by the CSC. Her resort to
judicial intervention could not take the place of the grievance procedure then available to her. Her
having shrouded her complaint in the RTC with language that presented a legal issue against the
assailed office order of Merto did not excuse her premature resort to judicial action.

LESSON LEARNED: The CSC has the power and function to prescribe, amend and enforce rules and
regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws.
Pursuant to this, CSC promulgated the Omnibus Rules, whose Rule XII, governing complaints and
grievances, defines a complaint as “an employee’s expressed (written or spoken) feelings of
dissatisfaction with some aspects of his working conditions, relationships or status which are outside
his control, thus, the case above is within the administrative power of the CSC.

 BARCELONA vs LIM, 724 SCRA 433

FACTS: Respondent businessman Dan Joel Lim filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay NBI and claimed that his
employees, Arnel E. Ditan and Pilipino Ubante, were influenced by petitioner, then an NLRC
employee, to file a labor complaint against Lim and petitioner demanded P20,000 for the settlement of
the labor case. Entrapment operations were done and petitioner was arrested. Chairperson Señeres
issued the Order formally charging him with dishonesty and grave misconduct and a Board was created
to investigate on the case. The Board found petitioner guilty for being caught red handed in the
entrapment operations. Upon approval by NLRC but without confirmation by Secretary of Labor,
petitioner was dismissed from service pending his appeal to CSC. CSC dismissed his appeal six years
after the appeal was filed. CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed CSC’s
dismissal.

When petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC on 15 January 2007,
Section 43 of Rule III of the Civil Service Rules applies which provided that a penalty of removal from
government service could not be executed pending appeal, unless the Department Secretary concerned
confirmed the imposition of the penalty. However, on 7 February 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
07-0244 which amended the aforementioned provision. The second paragraph of the new resolution
provides that a penalty of removal “shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary
concerned,” and while its third paragraph states: “Pending appeal, the penalty imposed shall be
executory, including the penalty of removal from the service without need for the confirmation by the
department secretary to which the agency is attached.”

Petitioner claims, among others, that this change was made for the sole purpose of hurting his
appeal and that because the penalty of dismissal imposed by Commissioner Señeres was never

Page 1 of 2
confirmed by the Secretary of Labor, it could not have been executed while his appeal to the CSC was
ongoing; thus, he should have been allowed to continue to work and receive his salary.

ISSUE: (1) Did the CSC change its rules merely for the purpose of hurting the petitioners appeal? and,
(2) Should the new rule be given retroactive effect?

HELD: (1) NO. The CSC has the power and the authority to amend the Civil Service Rules whenever it
deems the amendment necessary. The insinuation of petitioner that this change was made for the sole
purpose of hurting his appeal is a mere product of his imagination. The CSC is under no obligation to
review all the cases before it and, on the basis thereof, decide whether or not to amend its internal rules.

(2) NO. The authority of the CSC to amend the rules does not give it the authority to apply the new
provision retroactively. However, petitioner was never actually barred from returning to work. The
records disclose that he made no attempt to return to work after the expiration of the suspension period.
Thus, he was never prevented from returning to work — he just chose not to go back.

LESSON LEARNED: Although the CSC has rule-making authority, it cannot apply such rules
retroactively.

Page 2 of 2