WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND RUDY C. TESORO, RESPO…

Garcia versus Tesoro

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 brought by Winston F. Garcia, in his capacity as President and General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System, against the Court of Appeals and Rudy C. Tesoro. The petition assails the appellate court's decision and resolution which set aside the administrative finding of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct against Tesoro and instead found him guilty only of simple neglect of duty, with a reduced penalty. The case matters because it draws the boundary of a petition for certiorari: it reminds the bar that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction only, not errors of judgment, and that a disciplining authority's findings on guilt must be threshed out in the proper administrative forum and a timely appeal, not smuggled into a special civil action.

Procedural History

The Government Service Insurance System, through its Investigation Unit, formally charged Rudy C. Tesoro with gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, and placed him under preventive suspension. While the formal investigation was pending, Tesoro filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, questioning the validity of the formal charge and the preventive suspension order. Meanwhile, the disciplining authority rendered its decision finding him guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and imposing dismissal from the service, with perpetual prohibition from reemployment in government, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and cancellation of eligibility. Tesoro moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and he also appealed to the Civil Service Commission. The Court of Appeals then rendered its decision modifying the formal charge and the decision of the disciplining authority, setting aside the charge of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and finding Tesoro guilty only of simple neglect of duty, with suspension for six months without pay, crediting the period of preventive suspension and dismissal, and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Government Service Insurance System filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, and then filed the motion for reconsideration beyond the extended period. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for extension, citing the rule that such a motion does not toll the period, and merely noted the subsequent motion. The Government Service Insurance System then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

In February and March 2003, the Government Service Insurance System published an invitation to pre-qualify to bid for the construction of its Iloilo City Field Office building, with an approved budget cost of 57,000,000 pesos. Of the eight pre-qualified contractors, only four submitted financial bids. The Bids and Awards Committee declared the bid of Embrocal Builders, Incorporated as the lowest calculated and responsive bid, even though its bid of 55,350,000 pesos was the highest among the four bids submitted. The two lower bidders were informed of their disqualification only in December 2003.

On November 4, 2003, the Bids and Awards Committee recommended to Rudy C. Tesoro, Senior Vice-President of the Field Operations Group, that the contract be awarded to Embrocal. On the same date, the Notice of Award was signed, and the contract was executed between the Government Service Insurance System, represented by Tesoro, and Embrocal. On November 24, 2003, Garcia issued an office order reassigning Tesoro to the Corporate Services Group, effective immediately, and the order was received by the Office of the Senior Vice-President of the Field Operations Group on November 27, 2003. Tesoro approved and signed the disbursement voucher for a mobilization fee of 7,430,737 pesos net of taxes, and Embrocal received the check and issued a receipt on November 27, 2003.

Following protests from losing bidders, an investigation was conducted. The report concluded that the bidding was flawed for non-compliance with Republic Act Number 9184, and the Commission on Audit recommended that the field office explain the release of the mobilization fee despite the non-issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Tesoro was formally charged and placed under preventive suspension. The Government Service Insurance System later declared a failure of bidding, advised Embrocal that the contract was null and void, and the Commission on Audit issued a notice of disallowance of the mobilization fee, holding Tesoro and others liable for the disallowed sum.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the merits of the administrative case despite the absence of complete records.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction when it reviewed the merits of the administrative charge and modified the offense and penalty.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari filed by Tesoro before the Court of Appeals was rendered moot and academic by the rendition of the decision in the administrative case.
• Whether or not the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies barred the petition for certiorari filed by Tesoro.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46 of the Administrative Code of 1987, as invoked in the formal charge, provides the grounds for disciplinary action:

Section 46. Discipline: General Provisions. (a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process. (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: (1) Dishonesty; (2) Oppression; (3) Neglect of duty; (4) Misconduct; x x x (12) Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations; x x x

This provision defines the offenses charged against Tesoro and frames the question of whether his acts constituted gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct or only simple neglect of duty.

Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as cited by the Court of Appeals, provides the penalties for the offenses:

Section 52. Classification of Offenses. (A) The following are considered grave offenses: x x x (2) Gross neglect of duty; (3) Grave misconduct; x x x (B) The following are less grave offenses: (1) Simple neglect of duty; x x x

This provision supplies the classification of the offenses and the corresponding penalties, which the Court of Appeals modified when it found Tesoro liable only for simple neglect of duty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a suspension of the rules was warranted because the delay of one week and two days in filing the motion for reconsideration was not occasioned by negligence on the part of the petitioner's lawyer, who had a valid excuse to take leave of absence due to her father's sudden demise. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict and rigid application must be eschewed when it would frustrate substantial justice.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction when it reviewed the alleged errors of the disciplining authority not only in finding a prima facie case but also in determining guilt. The Court stressed that a certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character, and lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. Since the Court of Appeals did not declare any act of the petitioner to have been exercised without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of relief by sentencing Tesoro to a lower offense with a reduced penalty cannot be sustained. The Court held that whether Tesoro may be held liable for gross neglect of duty or for the lower offense of simple neglect of duty should be properly threshed out in the administrative case and thereafter in a timely appeal to the Civil Service Commission, not in the certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court did not sustain the procedural objections, as the merits of the case impelled a more liberal stance, and there was no showing that the review sought was merely frivolous and dilatory.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari is limited in scope and narrow in character. It lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. It will not issue to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review, not by certiorari. A disciplining authority's determination of guilt and the corresponding penalty must be challenged through the proper administrative appeal, not through a special civil action for certiorari. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict application may be suspended to serve substantial justice where the delay is not attributable to the party's negligence.

Disposition

The petition was granted, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were set aside, with the case remanded to the proper administrative forum for the determination of Tesoro's liability and the appropriate penalty.

Remember This

Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment; a disciplining authority's findings on guilt and penalty must be challenged through the proper administrative appeal, not a special civil action. Examiners use this case to test the scope of certiorari and the limits of a lower court's power to modify an administrative offense and penalty.