BENITO A. TIATCO, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner, Benito A. Tiatco, a career employee who rose from the ranks within the Department
of Health comes to this Honorable Court, alleging that he was unjustly demoted
from the position of Administrative Officer III to Administrative Officer II,
which is tantamount to removal from office. He earlier interposed an appeal from the
action of the respondent Department of Health (DOH) to the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), which dismissed said appeal in its resolution dated February
5, 1991. Thus, this petition for review
by way of certiorari.

Benito A. Tiatco was holding the position of “Hospital
Administrative Officer III” in a permanent capacity at the Central Luzon
General Hospital, Pampanga, when DOH, through Ministry Order No. 264-C, s.
1986, dated November 7, 1986, implemented the reorganization of its personnel
pursuant to Executive Order No. 119. The reorganization resulted in the appointment of Tiatco to the position
of “Hospital Administrative Officer II” at the Escolastica Romero
District Hospital.

He received a copy of the corresponding notice of reappointment
on May 6, 1988. On May 27, 1988, Atty.
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., whom Tiatco alleged to have approached, wrote the DOH,
through Messrs. Mario Taguiwalo and Jose Fabia, requesting it to seriously find
out whether there was really ground to demote Tiatco.^[1]
Acting on the said letter, Atty. Fabia, indorsed the matter to the Director,
Regional Health Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, with instructions to
submit an evaluation sheet on the performance of Tiatco or the grounds that
warranted his demotion under E.O. 119, within 15 days from receipt.^[2]

Unable to get any action from the DOH, Tiatco filed an appeal
directly to CSC dated October 31, 1989, more than a year after his
reappointment, contending among others that his demotion was without due
process and that the guidelines issued by
the DOH in implementing the reorganization under E.O. 119 did not
provide for an appeal to employees demoted in the course of the reorganization.

In its resolution dated February 5, 1991, CSC dismissed Tiatco’s
appeal, having found that he failed to file the pre-requisite appeal to the
appointing authority as required by the Rules on Government Reorganization and
that the appeal was filed out of time.

Tiatco counters this finding of CSC and asserts that his appeal
was filed twenty one (21) days from May 6, 1988 when he received notice of his
demotion or on May 27, 1988, through his counsel, Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon. Thus, his appeal was made well within the reglementary period of 30 days as provided in
the Implementing Guidelines of the DOH Order No. 26, s. 1988.

We fail to appreciate petitioner’s argument.

The Rules on Government Reorganization provide for procedure for
appeals, thus:

“Section 18 – Appeal to the Appointing
Authority – Any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments made may file
an appeal with the appointing authority within ten (10) days x x x.

“Section 19 – Appeal to the Civil
Service Commission –

(1) Any officer or employee
who is still not satisfied with the decision of the appointing authority may
further appeal within ten (10) days from receipt hereof to the Civil Service
Commission.”

More significantly, paragraph 8 of the Implementing Guidelines of
the DOH Order No. 26, s. 1988 reads:

“Paragraph 8 – Any employee who was re­appointed to a lower
position may also appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. He should however, first assume his position
under E.O. 119 until such time that the Department of Health Reorganization Committee
shall have decided on his appeal. The
Committee shall first dispose of all appeals of terminated employees before
disposing of all appeals of employees re­appointed to a lower position.”

The letter written by Atty. Bengzon to DOH can hardly be
considered a letter of protest much less an appeal. If at all, the letter merely inquired into the appointment status
of Tiatco; “it is basically an act of intercession by Atty. Bengzon in
favor of petitioner – – the former being the brother of (the then) DOH
Secretary Alfredo R.A. Bengzon.”^[3] On
the other hand, a cursory reading of Tiatco’s appeal to the CSC fails to
disclose his present allegation that he seasonably interposed an appeal/protest
of his demotion to the Department of Health Reorganization Committee on
Protest.^[4]
Instead, what is clear from the records is that he filed his appeal directly
with the Civil Service Commission.

The right to appeal is merely a statutory right and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law.^[5]
Failure to do so will cause loss of the right to appeal. Even administrative proceedings must end
sometime, just as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial
controversies.^[6]

In spite of Tiatco’s knowledge of the reglementary period within
which to file an appeal, he wilfully and knowingly did not exercise his right
to do so, which is tantamount to having slept on his right. The considerable delay in asserting his
right is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is
human nature for a person to enforce his right when the same is threatened or
invaded.^[7]
In this case, a delay of one (1) year and five (5) months is too long to
warrant the acquiescence of this court to his cause.

Premises considered, We find no error in the judgment of CSC
denying Tiatco’s appeal for having been filed out of time. Moreover, it has generally been Our rule
that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by
substantial evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also
finality.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
The letter is quoted hereunder in full:

“Dear MARIO and JOE:

“This is one of those cases I
have been harping about regarding the procedure of your reorganization. If you really have ground to demote Mr.
Benito Tiatco, then he should be given a fair hearing and not just be called
and be given a lecture on.

“Could you kindly look into
this matter very seriously and I would appreciate a feedback.

Sincerely,

(sgd) JOSE F.S.
BENGZON, JR.”

^[2]
Annex “H” of the Petition, Rollo, p. 24.

^[3]
Respondent’s Comment, p. 4; Rollo. p. 50.

^[4]
Original Records. pp. 196-193.

^[5]
Mendez v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95575, 204 SCRA 965 (1991).

^[6]
Antique Sawmills, Inc. v. Zayco, et al., L­20051, 17 SCRA 316 (1966).

^[7]
Quinsay v. IAC, G.R. No. 67935, 195 SCRA 268 (1991).

^[8]
Filipinas Manufacturers Bank v. NLRC, G.R. No. 72805, 182 SCRA 848
(1990); Earth Minerals Exploration, Inc. v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No.
78569, 194 SCRA 1 (1991).