MARIO A. NAVARRO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

On 21 June 1989, cable drums
worth P21,250.00 owned by Takaoka Engineering
Construction Co., Ltd., were stolen from the Ford Stockyard inside the Bataan
Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan. One suspect in the heist, petitioner Mario A. Navarro, then a
Police Officer of respondent Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) at BEPZ,
was administratively charged with grave misconduct. Upon recommendation of BEPZ Local Board of Inquiry, Discipline
and Promotion finding him guilty as charged the Senior Deputy Administrator of
EPZA, with the approval of the Administrator, issued on 18 October 1990 an
Order terminating the services of Navarro.

Navarro went on appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission. In its Decision of 25 July 1991, MSPB set aside the 18 October 1990 Order
of the Senior Deputy Administrator and directed the reinstatement of Navarro
with payment of back wages and other benefits due him from the time of his
dismissal. Respondent EPZA moved for
reconsideration but the same was denied in a MSPB Decision of 11 December 1991.

Meanwhile, the criminal case filed against Navarro and his
co-accused Rolando Lapitan and Primo Espino, Jr., for qualified theft was
dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Bataan, Branch 4, Balanga, Bataan, in
its Decision of 6 November 1990.^[1]

EPZA sought reversal of the MSPB decision before respondent Civil
Service Commission (CSC). On 16 July
1992 CSC set aside MSPB’s Decision of 11 December 1991, found Navarro guilty of
grave misconduct and reimposed on him the penalty of dismissal. Navarro’s motion for reconsideration was
denied in the CSC’s Resolution of 10 September 1992.

In this recourse, Navarro claims that respondent CSC acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction “x x
x x in relying in part on the sworn statement of Rolando Lapitan which was
totally rejected by the Regional Trial Court of Bataan for having been taken in
violation of the constitutional rights of the accused x x x x in relying in
part on the sworn statement of Constantino Lorenzo which was taken in violation
of the constitutional rights of the affiant x x x x in totally rejecting the
sworn statements of Rolando Lapitan and Constantino Lorenzo recanting their previous sworn statements although the
subsequent statements were given voluntarily and at a time when the affiants
were totally free from duress and fear x x x x in utilizing only a selected
portion of the testimony given by Constantino Lorenzo before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan and instead of considering the entire testimony
and Lorenzo’s recanting sworn statements x x x x (and) in deciding the case
without considering other pertinent evidence of record.”

Respondent EPZA filed its own comment praying for the dismissal
of the petition. The Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) on the other hand filed a manifestation supporting the
plea of the petitioner, arguing that no appeal may be taken from MSPB decision
exonerating Navarro from the administrative charge. On 6 May 1993, we granted CSC ten (10) days to comment but the
period expired on 1 July 1993 without a
comment filed.^[2] On 5 August 1993, CSC filed a motion for
extension of time of ten (10) days within which to comment which was noted on
17 August 1993 but no action was taken thereon as it was filed more than a
month late.

After deliberation and
giving due course to the petition we proceed to decide the case without
requiring memoranda as it appears that the manifestation of the OSG is
meritorious.

It is undisputed that
MSPB rendered a favorable decision for Navarro and this fact alone should have
prevented EPZA from appealing to the Commission on the basis of prevailing
jurisprudence. In the ponencia
of Associate Justice Jose A.R. Melo in Benigno V. Magpale, Jr. v. Civil
Service Commission,^[3] which the OSG quoted at length in its manifestation, we stated that under
P.D. 807, or “The Philippine Civil Service Law,” the CSC has no
appellate jurisdiction over MSPB’s decisions exonerating officers and employees
from administrative charges, citing Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission.^[4] In Mendez we explained:

“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.”

In Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission,^[5]
also cited in Magpale, we further explained
that:

“x x x 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 he
government.”

As it is clear that both public respondents acted without
jurisdiction – EPZA, for appealing MSPB’s decision exonerating Navarro from the
administrative charge and CSC, for taking cognizance of, and deciding, the appeal – the
issuance of the writ of certiorari is inevitable.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED
and the decision of respondent Civil Service Commission of 16 July 1992 and its
resolution of 10 September 1992 are hereby SET ASIDE. The decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board of 25 July
1991 and 11 December 1991 are REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J. and
Feliciano, J., on official leave.

^[1]
The other co-accused, Jesus Francisco,
Arnulfo Gulfo and Ernesto Cuenco, were at large.

^[2]
Per Registry Return Receipt Card, our
Resolution was received by CSC on 21 June 1993.

^[3]
G.R. No. 97381, 5 November 1992, En
Banc.

^[4]
G.R. No. 95575, 23 December 1991; 204
SCRA 965, 967-968.

^[5]
G.R. 88177, 4 December 1990 and companion
case; 192 SCRA 84, 98-99.