ANTONIO GUISADIO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE VS. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

On or before Dec. 19, 1958 Antonio Guisadio was chauffeur-examiner and acting
registrar of the Motor Vehicles branch in Cebu City. On that date he received a
letter of the Chief of the office in Manila notifying him of the decision of the
Commissioner of Civil Service in connection with the administrative
investigation conducted for his laxity and negligence in the performance of
official duties. The decision, the letter said, “considered Guisadio resigned
from the service effective on (his) last day of service with pay.” Such letter
was transmitted to Guisadio on Dec. 19, 1958 by a communication of District
Supervisor F. D. Singculan, which ended thusly: “You are hereby directed to turn
over all your property accountabilities” to me.

Unwilling to vacate his post immediately and pleading that he had not yet
received the full text of the Civil Service decision and that it was not yet
final and executory, Guisadio filed this suit in the Cebu court—on Dec. 19,
1958—to enjoin his said two official superiors from actually effecting his
separation from the Government service.

The respondents on Jan. 9, 1959 answered that the Civil Service Commissioner
should be made a party; that the decision could be, and should be immediately
executed in the best interest of the public; and that they were merely
implementing the orders of aforesaid Commissioner.

On Jan. 5, 1959 Guisadio received a copy of the decision of the Civil Service
Commissioner; and on Jan. 8, 1969 he filed a motion for reconsideration of the
said decision.

After hearing the parties, and aware of the happenings hereinabove described,
the Honorable Modesto R. Ramolete, Judge, rendered judgment for Guisadio, in
these words:

“* * * the respondents are hereby enjoined and restrained from enforcing said
decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered against the petitioner
and prohibiting said respondents from requiring the petitioner to give up his
office and to surrender property accountability until petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration shall have been resolved by the Commissioner of Civil Service,
or until petitioner’s appeal, if he will appeal to the Civil Service Board of
Appeals will confirm the decision appealed to it and such confirmatory decision
has become final; or until the petitioner has lost his right of appeal, either
by lapse of time or desistance from appealing to the said Civil Service Board of
Appeals.”

We perceive no merit in this appeal by the respondents to this Court. The
decision of the Commissioner had not yet become executory. Guisadio could still
file a motion for reconsideration; and he still could appeal to the Civili
Service Board of Appeals.

Nothing in the decision may be construed as requiring immediate
implementation. So, it was unnecessary to implead the Commissioner of Civil
Service. Guisadio, it will be noted, did not request the court to review said
officer’s decision. He merely questioned the immediate execution of such
decision. For at that time the administrative adjudication was still subject to
reconsideration and appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. And His Honor,
adopted the proper view.

Respondents, suggest that, during the pendency here of the appeal, the Civil
Service Board of Appeals has dismissed the appeal thereto by Guisadio.
(Evidently his motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commissioner, and he
resorted to the Board of Appealls.) But he counters with the statement that he
requested reconsideration of such dismissal by the Board of Appeals.

At any rate, we are called upon to decide on the basis of facts presented to
the trial judge. Upon consideration thereof, we find that he did not err.

Judgment affirmed. No costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.