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

Guisadio versus Villaluz

The Case

This is a petition brought by Antonio Guisadio, a chauffeur-examiner and acting registrar of the Motor Vehicles branch in Cebu City, against his official superiors Ruben A. Villaluz and the District Supervisor, to restrain them from carrying out a decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service that considered him resigned from the service. The action is one for injunction, and it matters because it fixes the rule on when an administrative decision of the Civil Service Commissioner may be executed: not while it is still open to reconsideration and appeal, and not where the employee asks the court only to stop immediate execution rather than to review the merits of the decision.

Procedural History

Guisadio filed the suit for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on the very day he received the directive to turn over his property accountabilities. The respondents answered, asking that the Civil Service Commissioner be made a party and insisting that the decision could and should be immediately executed. After hearing the parties, the trial judge, the Honorable Modesto R. Ramolete, rendered judgment for Guisadio, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the decision and from requiring him to give up his office and surrender his property accountability until his motion for reconsideration shall have been resolved, or until his appeal, if he appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, shall have been confirmed by a final decision, or until he lost his right of appeal by lapse of time or desistance. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case on the facts presented to the trial judge.

Facts

On or before December 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 from the Chief of the office in Manila notifying him of the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service in an 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.

The letter was transmitted to Guisadio on December 19, 1958 by a communication of District Supervisor F. D. Singculan, which ended with the direction that he turn over all his property accountabilities to the supervisor. 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 the suit on that same day to enjoin his two official superiors from actually effecting his separation from the Government service.

The respondents answered on January 9, 1959, contending that the Civil Service Commissioner should be made a party, that the decision could and should be immediately executed in the best interest of the public, and that they were merely implementing the orders of the Commissioner. On January 5, 1959, Guisadio received a copy of the decision of the Civil Service Commissioner, and on January 8, 1959, he filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision.

Issues

• Whether or not the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service had become executory at the time the respondents sought to enforce it.
• Whether or not the Commissioner of Civil Service was an indispensable party who had to be impleaded in the action.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in enjoining the immediate execution of the Commissioner's decision.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled administrative rule that a decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service is not executory while the employee may still file a motion for reconsideration and appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. That rule bears on the case because it determines whether the respondents could lawfully carry out the separation at once.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the decision of the Commissioner had not yet become executory. Guisadio could still file a motion for reconsideration, and he could still appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The Court stressed that nothing in the decision may be construed as requiring immediate implementation.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was unnecessary to implead the Commissioner of Civil Service. Guisadio did not request the court to review the Commissioner's decision; he merely questioned its immediate execution. At that time the administrative adjudication was still subject to reconsideration and appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial judge adopted the proper view and did not err. The respondents suggested that, during the pendency of the appeal, the Civil Service Board of Appeals had dismissed Guisadio's appeal, but he countered that he had requested reconsideration of that dismissal. The Court declined to resolve that new matter, holding that it was called upon to decide on the basis of the facts presented to the trial judge, and on those facts found no error.

Doctrine

A decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service does not become executory while the employee may still file a motion for reconsideration and appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Until the decision becomes final, the employee cannot be separated from the service, and his superiors may be enjoined from enforcing it.

Where the employee does not ask the court to review the merits of the administrative decision but only to restrain its immediate execution, the Commissioner of Civil Service need not be impleaded as a party.

The reviewing court decides on the basis of the facts presented to the trial judge, and developments occurring during the pendency of the appeal do not change that basis.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, without costs, and Guisadio won.

Remember This

An administrative decision that is still open to reconsideration and appeal is not executory and cannot be enforced. Examiners use this case to test the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and the propriety of injunction to restrain premature execution of a Civil Service decision.