ELEANOR G. GADON, PETITIONER, VS. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SAN ANDRES, ROMBLON AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.

Gadon versus Municipal Mayor of San Andres

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Eleanor G. Gadon against the Municipal Mayor of San Andres, Romblon and the Civil Service Commission, asking the Supreme Court to reverse and set aside the rulings of the Civil Service Commission that dismissed her appeal from an earlier decision recalling her appointment as Administrative Assistant II, or Bookkeeper, of the Municipal Government of San Andres. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two points: the power of the Civil Service Commission to recall or invalidate an appointment that violates the Local Government Code and budget circulars, and the settled rule that the right to appeal is statutory and must be perfected strictly in the manner and within the period fixed by the rules. It is, in short, a case about technical rules of appeal and why the Court refuses to bend them absent highly meritorious circumstances.

Procedural History

The matter began when Mayor Geminiano G. Galicia, Jr., the Municipal Mayor of San Andres, Romblon, filed an urgent petition with the Civil Service Commission, through the Civil Service Field Office in San Agustin, Romblon, to nullify the appointments of Gadon and three others. The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 4 rendered a decision granting the recall and invalidating Gadon's appointment, but directing that she be allowed to assume her duties and receive her salaries and benefits until the invalidation became final and executory. Gadon sought reconsideration by letter, which the Regional Office denied for lack of merit. She then filed a notice of appeal, which the Civil Service Commission Central Office treated as a petition for review. The Central Office directed her counsel to submit the appeal memorandum and certified true copies of the decision and evidence, but she failed to comply within the time allowed, so the Central Office dismissed her petition for review under its rules. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, assigning as errors the finding that she failed to submit the required documents, the denial of her motion for reconsideration, and the dismissal of her case on technicalities rather than on the merits.

Facts

Upon assuming office as local chief executive of San Andres, Romblon, Mayor Galicia discovered and verified that the appointments of several personnel, among them Eleanor G. Gadon as Administrative Assistant II, Bookkeeper, were illegal for violating the Local Government Code and a budget circular on personal services costs. He filed an urgent petition to nullify those appointments before the Civil Service Commission.

The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 4 granted the recall and invalidated Gadon's appointment on the ground that the creation of the position was not allowed under the Local Government Code and the budget circular, while allowing her to assume her duties and receive salaries and benefits until the invalidation became final. Gadon insisted that her position had been existing and vacant since June 1, 2004, and that her appointment was clothed with legality. The Regional Office denied her motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, the Civil Service Commission Central Office directed her counsel to file the appeal memorandum and certified true copies of the decision and evidence. Gadon and her counsel failed to comply within the time allowed, and so the Central Office dismissed the petition for review. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting her petition to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal by the Civil Service Commission Central Office of Gadon's petition for review, for failure to submit the required documents, was proper.
• Whether or not the denial of her motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was valid.
• Whether or not the dismissal of her case on technical grounds, instead of a decision on the merits, was correct.

Applicable Provisions

Section 114, Rule 23 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 114. Perfection of an Appeal. To perfect an appeal, the appellant shall submit three (3) copies of the following documents: a. Appeal memorandum containing the grounds relied upon for the appeal, together with the certified true copy of the decision, resolution or order appealed from and certified copies of the documents or evidence. The appeal memorandum shall be filed with the appellate authority, copy furnished the appointing authority. The latter shall submit the records of the case, which shall be systematically and chronologically arranged, paged and securely bound to prevent loss, with its comment, within fifteen (15) days from receipt, to the appellate authority. b. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal memorandum to the appointing authority; c. Proof of payment of the appeal fee; and d. A statement or certificate of non-forum shopping. When an appellant fails to comply with any of the above requirements within the reglementary period, the Commission, shall direct compliance within a period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof, with warning that failure to comply shall be construed as failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause the dismissal of the appeal with prejudice to its refiling.

This provision is the very rule Gadon failed to satisfy, and it is the basis for the dismissal of her appeal.

Section 325 of Republic Act Number 7160, the Local Government Code, provides:

Section 325. General Limitations. The use of the provincial, city and municipal funds shall be subject to the following limitations: a) The total appropriations, whether annual or supplemental, for personal services of a local government unit for one (1) fiscal year shall not exceed forty five (45%) percent in the case of the first to third class provinces, cities, and municipalities, and fifty five (55%) percent in the case of fourth class or lower, of the total annual income from regular sources realized in the next preceding fiscal year.

This is the limitation on personal services costs that Mayor Galicia invoked in attacking the legality of the appointments.

Section 327 of the same Code provides:

Section 327. Review of Appropriation Ordinances of provinces, cities and municipalities. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall review the ordinance authorizing annual or supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same manner for the review of other ordinances. If within ninety (90) days from receipt of copies of such ordinance, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan takes no action thereon, the same shall continue to be in full force and effect. If within the same period the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall have ascertained that the ordinance authorizing annual or supplemental appropriations has not complied with the requirements set forth in this title, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall, within the ninety (90) days period herein above prescribed, declare such ordinance inoperative in its entirety or in part. Items of appropriations contrary to limitations prescribed in this Title or in excess of the amounts prescribed herein shall be disallowed or reduced accordingly. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall within the same period advise the Sangguniang Panglungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned through the Local Chief Executive of any action on the ordinance under review. Upon receipt of such advice, the city or municipal treasurer concerned shall not make further disbursements of funds from any of the items of appropriation declared inoperative, disallowed or reduced.

This provision governs the review of appropriation ordinances and supplies the framework for testing whether the funding of the questioned positions was lawful.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal was proper. It stressed that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and one who seeks to avail of it must comply with the statute or rules. The manner of perfecting an appeal is outlined in Section 114, Rule 23 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. An appeal is perfected by filing an appeal memorandum containing the grounds relied upon, together with the certified true copy of the decision, resolution or order appealed from and certified copies of the documents or evidence. Gadon failed to file these required documents despite receiving the letter of compliance directing her to do so. The Court held that the rules of the Civil Service Commission, akin to the Rules of Court, have the force and effect of law, and that the manner of perfecting an appeal is indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business.

On the second issue, the Court found no error in the denial of the motion for reconsideration, since the dismissal rested on a valid ground under the rules.

On the third issue, the Court refused to relax the rules. It held that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and that non-compliance is fatal and renders the judgment final and executory. Non-compliance with the required procedure deprives the appellate authority of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal. The Court acknowledged its own caveat that it cannot respond to every clamor of injustice and bend the rules to placate a protestor, and that it is only in highly meritorious cases that it opts not to strictly apply the rules to prevent a grave injustice. That exception, the Court said, does not obtain here.

Doctrine

First, the right to appeal is a statutory right, not a natural right, and one who seeks to avail of it must comply strictly with the statute or rules governing its perfection. Second, the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional; non-compliance is fatal and renders the judgment final and executory, depriving the appellate authority of jurisdiction to alter it. Third, the rules of the Civil Service Commission, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law, and the manner of perfecting an appeal under Section 114, Rule 23 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is indispensable to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. Fourth, the Court will relax the rules only in highly meritorious cases where a grave injustice would otherwise be done, and the mere claim of injustice is not enough. Finally, on the substantive side, appointments to positions whose creation or funding violates the limitations of the Local Government Code and the budget circulars may be recalled or invalidated by the Civil Service Commission.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Civil Service Commission Central Office were affirmed. The Mayor and the Commission prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal. Examiners use this case to test the statutory nature of the right to appeal, the strict compliance rule for perfecting appeals before the Civil Service Commission, and the narrow highly meritorious exception to the relaxation of procedural rules.