WILMA R. PADRONES PETITIONER, VS. ELIZARDO DE LAYOLA AND MA. LOURDES ALMARIO, RESPONDENTS.

Padrones versus De Layola

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Wilma Padrones against Elizardo De Layola, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary and Officer-in-Charge of the News and Information Bureau, and Ma. Lourdes Almario, the complainant in the administrative case below. Padrones was found guilty of simple dishonesty for the loss of an office-issued cellphone and was suspended for one month. She asks the Supreme Court to set aside the rulings that refused to entertain her appeal. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate the hard edges of administrative procedure: that an appeal is a mere statutory privilege, that the failure to move for reconsideration can make a decision final and executory, and that the wrong forum cannot supply the jurisdiction the rules withhold.

Procedural History

On 4 December 2012, Padrones received a copy of a formal charge for simple dishonesty. Assistant Secretary De Layola, as Officer-in-Charge of the News and Information Bureau, rendered a decision dated 4 April 2013 finding her guilty and imposing one month of suspension. Padrones appealed directly to the Office of the President. The Office of the President dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the decision of the bureau head should first be appealed to the department head, in this case the Secretary of the Presidential Communications and Operations Office, and then finally to the Civil Service Commission. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. Padrones then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, and the case reached the Supreme Court by that petition.

Facts

Wilma Padrones was an employee of the News and Information Bureau under the Office of the President. On 4 December 2012, she received a copy of a formal charge for simple dishonesty arising from the loss of the office-issued cellphone of Ma. Lourdes Almario.

Assistant Secretary Elizardo De Layola, the Officer-in-Charge of the bureau, rendered a decision dated 4 April 2013 finding Padrones guilty of simple dishonesty as charged and imposing a penalty of one month of suspension, to commence upon her receipt of the decision.

Padrones did not file a motion for reconsideration of that decision. Instead, she went straight to the Office of the President on appeal. The Office of the President dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and denied her motion for reconsideration. Hence the petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the decision of Assistant Secretary De Layola and the decision of the Office of the President were rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Whether or not the failure of Padrones to file a motion for reconsideration before the News and Information Bureau rendered its decision final and executory, thereby foreclosing the remedy of appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 45 of Rule 9 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 45. Finality of Decisions. A decision rendered by the disciplining authority whereby a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary is imposed, shall be final, executory and not appealable unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. However, the respondent may file an appeal when the issue raised is violation of due process.

This is the decisive provision, because the one-month suspension falls squarely within its coverage and the motion for reconsideration was never filed.

Section 9 of Rule 2 of the same Revised Rules provides:

Section 9. Jurisdiction of Head of Agencies. The secretaries and head of agencies and other instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have original concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission over their respective officers and employees. They shall take cognizance of complaints involving their respective personnel. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary. In case the decision rendered by the bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.

This provision fixes the route of appeal: from the bureau head to the department, and finally to the Commission, which is why the Office of the President had no appellate jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no reversible error in the assailed issuances. Upon receipt of the decision imposing a one-month suspension, Padrones never filed a motion for reconsideration. Ineluctably, the judgment of the News and Information Bureau became final and executory. The Court stressed that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is necessary to stay the execution of the decision sought to be reconsidered, and that a party who fails to question an adverse decision by not filing the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law loses the right to do so.

On the second issue, the Court held that the remedy of appeal had faded into thin air. An appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional; failure to perfect it renders the judgment final and executory, with the result that no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision.

The Court added that had Padrones timely filed a motion for reconsideration, she could have appealed initially to the Presidential Communications and Operations Office, which has control and supervision over the News and Information Bureau and is headed by an official whose rank is that of a Cabinet Secretary. It is that office, and not the Office of the President, which has authority to entertain an appeal from a decision of the bureau. The Office of the President therefore erred not in dismissing the appeal and denying the motion for reconsideration, as it did not have appellate jurisdiction over a decision that had already attained finality.

Doctrine

First, an appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period fixed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Second, under Section 45 of Rule 9 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a decision imposing suspension of not more than thirty days or a fine not exceeding thirty days' salary is final, executory, and not appealable unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed; the motion for reconsideration is what stays execution and preserves the appeal. Third, under Section 9 of Rule 2, the appeal from a decision of a bureau or office head lies initially to the department and finally to the Civil Service Commission, so that recourse to the wrong forum cannot cure the defect or confer jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, and the decision of the News and Information Bureau finding Padrones guilty of simple dishonesty and suspending her for one month stood final and executory.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and that its perfection in the manner and within the period set by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Examiners use this case to test the finality rule for light administrative penalties under Section 45 of Rule 9, and the correct route of appeal from a bureau head to the department and then to the Civil Service Commission.