BENIGNO V. MAGPALE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND ROGELIO A. DAYAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing
Resolution No. 90-962 dated October 19, 1990 of respondent Civil Service
Commission (CSC). Said CSC resolution
set aside and modified the decision dated February 5, 1990 of the Merit Systems Protection Board in MSPB
Case No. 449, which ordered the immediate reinstatement in the service herein
petitioner Benigno V. Magpale, Jr., without loss of seniority rights and with
payment of back salaries and other emoluments to which he is entitled under the
law.

The record shows that petitioner started his career in government
as an employee in the Presidential Assistance on Community Development in
1960. Fifteen years later, or in 1975,
he transferred to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) as Arrastre Superintendent. He was promoted to the position of Port
Manager in 1977 of the Port
Management Unit (PMU), General Santos City. Then he was reassigned, in the
same year, to PPA–PMU, Tacloban City where he likewise discharged the functions
of Port Manager. On December 1, 1982,
the PPA General Manager designated Atty. William A. Enriquez as
officer-in-charge of PPA–PMU, Tacloban City effective December 6, 1982. On January 6, 1983, petitioner was ordered
to immediately report to the Assistant General Manager (AGM) for Operations,
PPA, Manila. Petitioner reported at
PPA, Manila on the same date and performed the duties and functions assigned to
him.

In an Internal Control Department Report dated March 5, 1984, the
PMU–Tacloban Inventory Committee and the Commission on Audit (COA) stated that
petitioner failed to account for equipment of PPA valued at P65,542.25 and to
liquidate cash advances amounting to P130,069.61. He was found also to have incurred unauthorized absences from May
25, 1984 to July 23, 1984.

On July 23, 1984, or nineteen months after he began reporting in
Manila, a formal charge for Dishonesty, Pursuit of Private Business without
permission as required by Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Frequent and
Unauthorized Absences and Neglect of Duty was filed against petitioner. Based on said charges, he was ordered preventively suspended and
has been out of service since then.

For almost four years, the case remained unacted upon. The formal investigation and hearing resumed
on September 18, 1987.

On January 18, 1989, a Decision was rendered by the Secretary of
the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), through its
Administrative Action Board, finding petitioner guilty of Gross Negligence on
two counts: (a) for his failure to account for the forty-four (44) assorted
units of equipment, among them a Sony Betamax, and a TV Camera, and (b) for
failing to render the required liquidation of his cash advances amounting to
P44,877.00 for a period of four years. Petitioner was also found guilty of frequent and unauthorized
absences. Accordingly, he was meted the
penalty of dismissal from the service with the corresponding accessory
penalties.

When petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
Decision was denied in the DOTC’s Order of February 20, 1989, he appealed to
the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB) of respondent Civil Service
Commission.

On February 5, 1990, the MSPB rendered a Decision reversing the
Decision of the DOTC. The pertinent
portion of the MSPB’s Decision reads:

“After a careful review of the records of the case, this Board
found the appeal meritorious. Respondent cannot be held liable for Gross Negligence for his alleged
failure to account for several
properties and for failure to liquidate the cash advances he received as there
was no showing that he has been specifically required to do so either by law or
regulation. The mere detail of
respondent to PPA-Manila, in the absence of an order requiring him to turn over
and account for the funds and property received for his office at PMU-Tacloban
will not necessarily obligate him to
make accounting for the same.

Moreover, Section 105, Chapter 5 of Presidential Decree 1445,
otherwise known as ‘The Government Auditing Code of the Philippines’ measured
the liability of an officer accountable
for government property only to the money value of said property. Though respondent is the person primarily
liable for these funds and property, he holds this liability jointly with the
person who has the actual possession thereof and who has the immediate
responsibility for their safekeeping.

As to the charge relative to respondent’s
frequent unauthorized absences had been sufficiently and convincingly
explained, due to which the Board found him not at all guilty of the offense
charged (sic).

IN VIEW THEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed. Respondent-Appellant Magpale
should immediately be reinstated in the service without loss of seniority
rights and with payment of back salaries and other emoluments to which he is
entitled under the law.” (pp. 31-32, Rollo.)

On March 1, 1990, PPA, through its General Manager, herein
respondent Rogelio A. Dayan, filed an appeal with the Civil Service Field
Office-PPA, and the latter office indorsed the appeal to respondent CSC in a
letter dated March 5, 1990.

On March 5, 1990, petitioner requested the Secretary of the DOTC
to direct the PPA to implement the MSPB decision as it has become final and
executory. Said request was reiterated
in another letter also dated March 5, 1990 by petitioner to OIC Wilfredo M.
Trinidad of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Legal
Affairs, DOTC.

On March 13, 1990, petitioner filed with the MSPB a Motion for
Implementation of the MSPB decision. This was opposed by the PPA through its General Manager.

On April 27, 1990, petitioner filed with respondent CSC his
comment to the appeal of the PPA contending that he is not an accountable officer and is under no obligation to account
for the property and equipment; that said property and equipment were not
received by him as custodian and he should not be held liable for the loss of
the same; that the said property and equipment were placed in PPA-PMU Tacloban
City which the herein petitioner left on October 8, 1982 and since then had
lost control over them. Moreover,
petitioner averred that as to the unliquidated cash advances of P44,877.00, the
same had long been liquidated. Finally,
petitioner claimed that his failure to secure the clearance for any possible
property or financial obligation in PMU-Tacloban was due to the urgency of his
transfer to PPA-Manila and the absence of any order or demand to secure the
clearance.

On May 29, 1990, the MSPB issued
an Order for the immediate
implementation of its February 5, 1990 Decision, ruling that:

“Records further show that a copy of this Board’s decision
was received by the Office of the Honorable Secretary, that Department, thru
Mr. Frankie Tampus on February 6, 1990. Records finally show that as of March 5, 1990, no motion for
reconsideration of this Board’s aforementioned decision has ever been filed as
evidenced by the certification of even date issued and signed by Director
Adelaida C. Montero of the Office for Central Personnel Records, this
Commission. Hence, said decision has
long become final and executory”. (p. 34, Rollo.)

On June 28, 1990, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal
of PPA claiming that:

“1.  Appeal of PPA was filed out of time and that
the CSC has no jurisdiction over it;

2.   The PPA has not exhausted admi­nistrative
remedies before appealing to the higher body, the CSC;

3. The MSPB decision has become final
and therefore cannot be disturbed anymore.

(p. 22, Rollo.)

On October 19, 1990, respondent CSC rendered its now assailed
Resolution No. 90-962, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

“The Commission thus holds respond­ent Magpale guilty of Gross
Neglect of Duty on two (2) counts for his failure to account for the forty-four
(44) equipments (sic) under his charge and to render an accounting for cash
advances amounting to P44,877.90. Accordingly, considering two mitigating
circumstances of length of service and first offense in favor of respondent,
the commission hereby imposes a penalty of suspension for a period of one (1)
year against him. As he has been out of
the service since 1984, the penalty is deemed served and he should now be
reinstated to his former position. This
is, however, without prejudice to any criminal or civil proceedings that the
agency concerned or the COA may institute as proper under the premises.

Finally, the decision of the MSPB exonerating the respondent
Magpale for Gross Negligence is hereby reversed. Corollarily, the order of payment of back salaries is hereby set
aside. MSPB is likewise reminded to be
more circumspect on matters of this
nature, especially as the instant case involves accountability of public funds
and property.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission finds
respondent Benigno V. Magpale, Jr., guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty on two (2)
counts for failure to account for the forty-four (44) equipments (sic) under
his charge and to render an accounting for cash advance amounting to P44,877.90. In view of the attendant mitigating circumstances of length of service
and first offense in favor of respondent and the Neglect of Duty to account for
cash advance in the amount of P44,877.90 (second count) be appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance, the
penalty of suspension for one (1) year shall be imposed against respondent. This shall be without prejudice to any
criminal or civil proceedings that PPA or COA may institute against
respondent. Accordingly, the Decision and Order of MSPB dated February 5, 1990 and May 29, 1990,
respectively, are hereby set aside.” (pp. 27-28, Rollo.)

Hence, the present recourse.

The petition alleges that respondent CSC, in issuing its
Resolution No. 90-962, gravely abused its discretion because:

“1.   The law did not authorize an appeal by the
government from an adverse decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);

2.       
Respondent PPA General Manager did not have the right
or legal personality to appeal from the MSPB decision;

3.       
Assuming that the appeal was available to respondent
DAYAN, the same was filed out of time after the MSPB decision had long become
final and executory.” (pp. 6-7,
Petition; pp. 7-8, Rollo.)

In support of his first contention, petitioner invokes Paragraph
2(a), Section 16, Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No.
292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 which provides:

“Sec. 16. Offices
in the Commission. — The
Commission shall have the following
offices:

x x x  x x x x x x

(2) The Merit
Systems Protection Board composed of a Chairman and two (2) members shall have the following functions:

(a)   Hear and decide on appeal administrative
cases involving officials and employees of the Civil Service. Its decision shall be final except those
involving dismissal or separation from the service which may be appealed to the
Commission.” (Underscoring supplied.)

claiming that since the MSPB decision was
not for dismissal or separation from the service, but reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and with payment of back salaries, the said MSPB
decision should be deemed final, immediately executory and unappealable.

Petitioner next contends that assuming, for the sake of argument,
that the decision of the MSPB was appealable, respondent Dayan, even in his
capacity as General Manager of the PPA, did not have the legal personality nor
the right to appeal the decision of the MSPB, citing Paragraph 1, Section 49,
Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V, of Executive Order No. 292 and the case
of Paredes vs. CSC, G.R. No. 88177, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 84.

Assuming further that the MSPB decision was appealable and that
respondent Dayan had the legal personality to appeal the MSPB decision,
petitioner still contends that the appeal should not have been given due course
by the respondent CSC because the appeal was not filed with the proper disciplining office in accordance with same Section 49 of
Executive Order No. 292, which, in this case, should be the DOTC, not with the
CSC Field Office at the PPA.

On the merit of the petition, petitioner claims that assuming
even further that an appeal lies from the MSPB
decision, that respondent Dayan had the legal personality or standing to
institute the appeal and that it was filed with the proper office, still CSC
Resolution 90-962 was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because
petitioner cannot be suspended for alleged failure to account for pieces of
equipment and cash advances since this is not the neglect of duty contemplated
by Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 or Section 46 of the chapter on
the Civil Service in Executive Order 292. At most, petitioner can be held liable for the money value of the
equipment and advances as mandated by Section 105 of Presidential Decree No.
1445, the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.

For its part, respondent CSC maintains -?

First, that the finality of the MSPB decision in disciplinary
cases as stated in Section 16, Paragraph 2(a), Book V of Executive Order No.
292, relied upon by petitioner, is modified by Section 12, Paragraph 11, Book
V, of the same Executive Order No. 292, which reads:

“Section 12. Powers
and Functions. — The Commission shall
have the follow­ing powers and
functions:

x x x x x x       x x x

(11) Hear and decide
administrative cases instituted by or brought directly or on appeal, including
contested appointments, and review decisions
and actions of its offices and of the agen­cies attached to it.”

Furthermore, relevant provisions of Executive Order No. 135 dated
February 25, 1987 amending Section 19(b) of Presidential Decree No. 807 and
Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1409 state, thus:

“WHEREAS, in the interest of justice, there is a need to
confer upon the Civil Service Commission jurisdic­tion over appeal in contested
or provisional appointments and to make
its decision thereon, as well as in administrative disciplinary cases final
and reviewable by the Supreme Court.

x x x x x x       x x x

Relationship with the Civil
Service Commission. — The
Commission shall hear and decide
appeals from other decisions of the Board provided that the decisions of the
Commission shall be subject to review
on certiorari only upon receipt of a copy thereof by the
aggrieved party.”

Thus, respondent CSC argues that it is deemed not to have lost its appellate jurisdiction over the
decisions of the MSPB in administrative disciplinary cases.

Second, the case of Paredes
v. CSC is not
applicable. Respondent Dayan appealed
the MSPB decision not in his personal capacity nor in pursuit of his private interest, but as head of the PPA,
being the general manager thereof.

Third, the appeal was filed with the
proper disciplin­ing office because the decision appealed from was that of the MSPB, one of the offices in
respondent CSC. Thus, respondent CSC was justified in
giving due course to PPA’s notice of appeal filed with its (CSC) Field Office
at the PPA.

Finally, petitioner’s
claim that he is liable only for the money value of the property and cash advances
and cannot be administratively charged for such infraction is untenable and a mockery of the civil service
law. For his failure to account for the
property under his charge and to liquidate his cash advances, petitioner is
guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and should have been dismissed from the service
if no mitigating circumstances were considered in his favor.

We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to
file their respective memoranda. After
consi­dering the same and the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, We find that
the petition must be granted.

After Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, (204 SCRA 965
[1991]), the extent of the authority of respondent CSC to review the decisions
of the MSPB is now a settled matter.

The Court, in said case held:

“It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provision of law. (Victorias
Milling Co., Inc. vs. Office of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, 153 SCRA 318).

A cursory reading of P.D. 807, otherwise known as ‘The Philippine
Civil Service Law’ shows that said law does not contemplate a review of deci­sions
exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges.

Section 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provides:

‘The Commission shall de­cide upon appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involv­ing the imposition of a penalty of suspension for
more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. x x x’ (italics supplied) (p. 7, Rollo)

Said provision must be read toge­ther with Section 39 paragraph (a)
of P.D. 805 which contemplates:

‘Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely
affected by the decision x x x.’
(italics supplied) (p. 104, Rollo)

The phrase ‘party adversely affected by the decision’ refers to the
govern­ment employee against whom the adminis­trative case is filed for the
purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion
in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office. In the instant case, Coloyan who filed the
appeal cannot be considered an aggrieved party because he is not the respondent
in the administrative case below.

Finally, pursuant to Section 37 paragraph (b) of P.D. 807, the city
mayor, as head of the city government, is empowered to enforce judgment with
finality on lesser penalties like suspension from work for one month and forfeiture of salary equivalent to one month
against erring employees.

By inference or
implication, the remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a case where the
respondent is found guilty of the charges filed against him. But when the respondent is exonerated of
said charges, as in this case, there is no occasion for
appeal.” (pp. 967-968)

The above ruling is a reiteration of the earlier pronouncement in
Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission, (192 SCRA 84 [1990]) cited by petitioner,
wherein We said:

“Based on the the above provisions of law, appeal to the Civil
Service Commission in an administrative case is extended to the party adversely
affected by the decision, that is, the person or the respondent employee who
has been meted out the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or fine
in an amount exceeding thirty days salary demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. The decision of the disciplining authority is even final and not
appealable to the Civil Service Commission in cases where the penalty imposed
is suspension for not more than thirty
days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary. Appeal in cases allowed by law
must be filed within fifteen days from receipt of the decision.

Here the MSPB after hearing and the submission of memoranda
exonerated private respondent Amor of all charges except for habitual
tardiness. The penalty was only a
reprimand so that even private
respondent Amor, the party adversely affected by the decision, cannot even
interpose an appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

As correctly ruled by private respondent, petitioner Paredes the
complainant is not the party adversely affected by the decision so that she has
no legal personality to interpose an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission. In an administrative case,
the complainant is a mere witness (Gonzalo v. D. Roda, 64 SCRA 120). Even if she is the Head of the Administrative Services Department of the HSRC as a
complainant she is merely a witness for the government in an administrative
case. No private interest is involved
in an administrative case as
the offense is committed against the
government.” (pp. 98-99)

While it is true, as contended by respondent Civil Service
Commission that under Section 12 (par. 11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Book V of
Executive Order 292, the CSC does have the power to —

“Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought
before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices
and of the agencies attached to it. x
x x”

the exercise of the power is qualified by
and should be read together with the other sections of the same sub-title and
book of Executive Order 292, particularly Section 49 which prescribes the
following requisites for the exercise of the power of appeal, to wit:

(a)  
the decision must be
appealable;

(b)  
the appeal must be
made by the party adversely affected by the decision;

(c)  
the appeal must be
made within fifteen days from receipt of the decision, unless a petition for
reconsideration is seasonably filed; and

(d)  the notice of appeal must be filed with the
disciplining office, which shall forward the records of the case, together with
the notice of appeal to the appellate authority within fifteen days from filing
of the notice of appeal, with its comments, if any.

Under Section 47 of the same Code, the CSC shall decide on appeal
all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of:

(a)   
a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or

(b)    fine
in an amount exceeding thirty days salary; or

(c)    demotion
in rank or salary or transfer; or

(d)    removal or dismissal from office.

The February 5, 1990 decision of the MSPB did not involve
dismissal or separation from office, rather, the decision exonerated petitioner
and ordered him reinstated to his
former position. Consequently, in the
light of our pronouncements in the aforecited cases of Mendez vs. Civil
Service Commission and Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission, the
MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC.

Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial functions acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred
by law to hear and decide the case. (Acena
v. Civil Service Commission, 193 SCRA 623 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Civil Service Commission is
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Merit Systems Protection
Board dated February 5, 1990 is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, and
Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., and
Medialdea, J., on leave.