7 CSC vs. Alfonso

8/31/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589
Act No. 2833, which took effect on 1 January 1920, was the first
Philippine income tax law enacted by the Philippine Legislature and
which law substantially reproduced the U.S. Revenue Law of 1916
as amended by U.S. Revenue Law of 1917; Being a law of
American origin, the authoritative decisions of the official charged
with enforcing it in the U.S. have peculiar persuasive force in the
Philippines. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Baier-Nickel,
500 SCRA 87 [2006])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 179452. June 11, 2009.*
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. LARRY M.

ALFONSO, respondent.
Administrative Law; Civil Service Commission; Jurisdiction; All

Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) officers and employees,
whether they be classified as teachers or professors pursuant to certain
provisions of law, are deemed, first and foremost, civil servants accountable
to the people and answerable to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in
cases of complaints lodged by a citizen against them as public servants.—
As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has jurisdiction
to supervise the performance of and discipline, if need be, all government
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters such as PUP. Accordingly, all PUP
officers and employees, whether they be classified as teachers or professors
pursuant to certain provisions of law, are deemed, first and foremost, civil
servants accountable to the people and answerable to the CSC in cases of
complaints lodged by a citizen against them as public servants. Admittedly,
the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary cases decided by
government departments, agencies and instrumentalities. However, a
complaint may be filed directly with the CSC, and the Commission has the
authority to hear and decide
_______________
* EN BANC.
89
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 89
Civil Service Commission vs. Alfonso
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ce77f69bedcc74827003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
the case, although it may opt to deputize a department or an agency to

conduct the investigation. Specifically, Sections 9(j) and 37(a) of P.D. 807,
otherwise known as the Civil Service Law of 1975, provide: x x x
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Ponciano R. Solosa for respondent.
NACHURA, J.:
This is a Rule 45 petition assailing the May 21, 2007 Decision1
and August 23, 2007 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 97284, which reversed Civil Service Commission
(CSC) Resolution Nos. 0618213 and 0619084 dated October 16,
2006 and November 7, 2006, respectively, as well as its Order5 dated
December 11, 2006, formally charging respondent Larry Alfonso
with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service and preventively suspending him from his position as
Director of the Human Resources Management Department of the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP).
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
Respondent Larry M. Alfonso is the Director of the Human
Resources Management Department of PUP. On July 6, 2006, Dr.
Zenaida Pia, Professor IV in PUP-Sta. Mesa, and Dindo
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices

Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Rollo, pp. 54-68.
2 Rollo, pp. 69-70.
3 Id., at pp. 71-76.
4 Id., at pp. 94-98.
5 Id., at pp. 110-112.
90
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Emmanuel Bautista, President of Unyon ng mga Kawani sa PUP,

jointly filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Alfonso for violation of
Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, charging the latter with grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Service,
and violation of Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. The
affidavit-complaint was lodged before the Civil Service Commission
(CSC). In their affidavit, Dr. Pia and Bautista alleged, among others,
that respondent repeatedly abused his authority as head of PUP’s
personnel department when the latter prepared and included his
name in Special Order Nos. 0960 and 1004 for overnight services,
ostensibly authorizing him to work for 24 hours straight from May
16 to 20, May 22 to 27 and May 29 to June 2, 2006. As a result
thereof, Alfonso made considerable earnings for allegedly working
in humanly impossible conditions 24 hours straight daily, for three
consecutive weeks.6
In support of their complaint, Dr. Pia and Bautista submitted the
following documentary evidence:
“1. Special Order No. 1004, s. 2006;

2. Special Order No. 0960, s. 2006;
3. Daily time records of Saturday and Overnight Services of Alfonso;
4. PUP Perm-OT overnight May 2006 payroll register;
5. Xerox copy of check no. 162833 dated May 31, 2006;
6. Summary of Alfonso’s Saturday, overnight and overtime schedule;
7. Computation of the number of hours, days and weeks that Alfonso
allegedly served; and
8. Explanation of official time, night service, Saturday overtime and
overnight services rendered by Alfonso for the month of May.”7
_______________
6 Id., at p. 55.
7 Id., at pp. 32-33.
91
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 91

On August 10, 2006, the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) of the

CSC issued an order directing Alfonso to submit his counter-
affidavit/comment within three (3) days from receipt thereof.
In his Counter-Affidavit8 dated August 30, 2006, respondent
averred that he only rendered overnight work on May 17, 19, 22, 24,
26, 29 and 31, 2006. He explained that his daily time record
explicitly indicates that it covers overnight services pursuant to S.O.
No. 1004, series of 2006, and that an entry such as “Day 17, arrival
8:00 PM; Day 18, departure 8:00 AM” connoted only a day of
overnight work and not continuous two (2) days of rendition of
services.9
The CSC, however, found Alfonso’s explanation wanting. On
October 25, 2006, it issued Resolution No. 061821 formally
charging Alfonso with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the Service, and imposing a 90-day preventive
suspension against him.10
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 113-122.

9 Id., at pp. 55-56.
10 Pertinent portion of the said Resolution states:
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby issues a FORMAL CHARGE
against Larry M. Alfonso for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, he is given five (5) days from
receipt hereof to submit his written answer under oath, together with the
affidavits of his witnesses and documentary evidence, if any. He is further
directed to indicate in his Answer whether he elects a formal investigation or
waive the same. Failure to file an answer shall be deemed a waiver on his part.
A Motion to Dismiss, Request for Clarification, Bill of Particulars or any
other pleadings shall be considered by the Commission as his Answer and
shall be evaluated as such. Furthermore, he is advised of his right to the
assistance of a counsel of his choice.
A PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION is hereby issued against Larry M.
Alfonso for ninety (90) days effective upon receipt hereof. (Id., at pp. 75-76.)
92

Aggrieved, respondent filed an omnibus motion for

reconsideration of the preventive suspension order and requested a
change of venue11 from the CSC-Central Office to the CSC-National
Capital Region (CSC-NCR). In the motion, he argued that it is the
CSC-NCR regional office that has jurisdiction over the matter
pursuant to Section 6 of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, and that to
hold otherwise may deprive him of his right to appeal.12 The motion
was denied.13
Undaunted, Alfonso filed another motion for reconsi-deration on
November 20, 2006, accompanied by a motion to admit his
supplemental answer.14 This time, however, respondent argued that
the CSC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative
case filed against him. According to him, it is the PUP Board of
Regents that has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove PUP
employees pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 829215 in relation
to R.A. No.
_______________
11 Rollo, pp. 77-93.

12 Id., at pp. 89-92.
13 The dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the motion of Larry M. Alfonso to lift the order of
preventive suspension issued against him by the Commission is hereby
DENIED. Accordingly, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No.
061821 dated October 16, 2006, formally charging Alfonso of Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and
simultaneously placing him under preventive suspension for a period of
ninety (90) days, STANDS.
Likewise, the request of Alfonso for the transfer of venue of the instant
case from the CSC Central Office to the CSC-National Capital Region (CSC-
NCR) is DENIED. The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) is directed to proceed
with the formal investigation of the case. (Id., at p. 98.)
14 Rollo, pp. 99-109.
15 Entitled “An Act Providing for the Uniform Composition and Powers of the
Governing Boards, the Manner of Appointment and Term of Office of the President of
Chartered State Universities and Colleges, and for Other Purposes,” or more
93
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 93

4670.16
Without ruling on the motion, Assistant Commissioner Atty.
Anicia Marasigan-de Lima, head of CSC-NCR, issued an Order17
dated December 11, 2006 directing the Office of the President of
PUP to implement the preventive suspension order against
respondent.18
Dissatisfied, respondent sought relief before the CA via a petition
for certiorari and prohibition.
On May 21, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision19 in favor of
Alfonso. The pertinent portion of the decision declares:
“Applying the foregoing provisions, it appears that the CSC may take
cognizance of an administrative case in two ways: (1) through a complaint
filed by a private citizen against a government official or employee; and (2)
appealed cases from the decisions rendered by Secretaries or heads of
agencies, instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities in cases filed
against officers and employees under their jurisdiction.
Indisputably, the persons who filed the affidavit-complaint against
petitioner held positions in and were under the employ of
_______________
commonly known as the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997.
16 Otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

17 Supra note 5.
18 The dispositive portion of the said Order reads:
WHEREFORE, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, through its Acting
President Dr. Dante G. Guevarra, is hereby directed to place Larry M. Alfonso under
preventive suspension IMMEDIATELY upon receipt hereof pursuant to CSC
Resolution Nos. 061821 and 061908. Failure to do so will constrain this Office to
initiate contempt charges and file an administrative case against D. Guevarra for
Neglect of Duty or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service pursuant to
Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. (Id., at
p. 112.)
19 Supra note 1.
94

PUP. Hence, they cannot be considered as private citizens in the

contemplation of the said provision. It is likewise undisputed that the
subject CSC resolutions were not rendered in the exercise of its power to
review or its appellate jurisdiction but was an ordinary administrative case.
Hence, the present case falls short of the requirement that would otherwise
have justified the CSC’s immediate exercise of its jurisdiction over the
administrative case against petitioner.
Even assuming that the CSC may directly entertain the complaints filed
with it, the doctrine of exhaustion [of] administrative remedies still prevents
it from entertaining the present administrative case. If a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be had by giving the administrative
officer concerned every opportunity to decide on the matter that comes
within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be priorly exhausted.
The circumstances in this case do not justify the disregard of the
doctrine. Hence, the administrative complaint should have been lodged with
the PUP board of regents.
x x x”
The CA ratiocinated that since Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.

1341, the law creating PUP, is the special law governing PUP, then it
is the Board of Regents (BOR) that should carry out the duties of the
investigating committee and has the proper authority to discipline
PUP personnel corollary to the BOR’s general powers of
administration.20 According to the CA, the power of the BOR to hire
carries with it the corresponding power to discipline PUP personnel
pursuant to Section 7(c) of P.D.1341, to wit:
“Section 7. The Board of Regents shall have the following powers and
duties in addition to his general powers of administration and the exercise of
all the powers of a corporation as provided in Section 13 of Act Numbered
fourteen hundred fifty-nine as amended, otherwise known as the Philippine
Corporation Law:
x x x x
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 64.
95
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 95

(c) To appoint, on the recommendation of the President of the

University, professors, instructors, lecturers and other members of the
faculty, and other officials and employees of the University; to fix their
compensation, hours of service, and such, other duties and conditions as it
may deem proper, any other provisions of the law to the contrary
notwithstanding; to grant to them in his discretion, leave of absence under
such regulations as it may promulgate, any other conditions of the law to the
contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an
investigation and hearing shall have been had;
x x x”
This provision in the PUP Charter is substantially in accord with

Section 4(h) of R.A. 8292,
“Section 4. Powers and Duties of Governing Boards.—The governing

board shall have the following specific powers and duties in addition to its
general powers of administration and the exercise of all the powers granted
to the board of directors of a corporation under Section 36 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as the Corporation Code of the
Philippines:
x x x x
(h) to fix and adjust salaries of faculty members and administrative
officials and employees subject to the provisions of the revised
compensation and classification system and other pertinent budget and
compensation laws governing hours of service, and such other duties and
conditions as it may deem proper; to grant them, at its discretion, leaves of
absence under such regulations as it may promulgate, any provisions of
existing law to the contrary notwithstanding; and to remove them for cause
in accordance with the requirements of due process of law.”
Given the foregoing antecedents, the pivotal issue we have to
resolve is whether the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
complaint filed against Alfonso.
We find in favor of petitioner.
Section 2(1) and Section 3, Article IX-B of our Constitution, are
clear, as they provide that:
96

“Sec. 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Sec. 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency
of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to
promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and
courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards
system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels
and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public
accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual
report on its personnel programs.”
As the central personnel agency of the government,21 the CSC

has jurisdiction to supervise the performance of and discipline, if
need be, all government employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters
such as PUP. Accordingly, all PUP officers and employees, whether
they be classified as teachers or professors pursuant to certain
provisions of law, are deemed, first and foremost, civil servants
accountable to the people and answerable to the CSC in cases of
complaints lodged by a citizen against them as public servants.
Admittedly, the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary
cases decided by government departments, agencies and
instrumentalities. However, a complaint may be filed directly with
the CSC, and the Commission has the authority to hear and decide
the case, although it may opt to deputize a department or an agency
to conduct the investigation. Specifically, Sections 9(j) and 37(a) of
P.D. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Law of 1975,
provide:
“SECTION 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission.—The

Commission shall administer the Civil Service and shall have the following
powers and function:
x x x x
_______________
21 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 3.
97
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 97

(j) Hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted
directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on appeal;
x x x x
Section 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.—(a) 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. A complaint may be filed directly with
the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or
employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may
deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to
conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be
submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken.”22
We are not unmindful of certain special laws that allow the

creation of disciplinary committees and governing bodies in
different branches, subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities of
the government to hear and decide administrative complaints against
their respective officers and employees. Be that as it may, we cannot
interpret the creation of such bodies nor the passage of laws such as
—R.A. Nos. 8292 and 4670 allowing for the creation of such
disciplinary bodies—as having divested the CSC of its inherent
power to supervise and discipline government employees, including
those in the academe. To hold otherwise would not only negate the
very purpose for which the CSC was established, i.e. to instill
professionalism, integrity, and accountability in our civil service, but
would also impliedly amend the Constitution itself.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,23 we explained that it is
error to contend that R.A. No. 4670 conferred exclusive disciplinary
authority on the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS, now Department of Education or
_______________
22 Emphasis supplied.
23 G.R. No. 165416, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 253.
98

DepEd) over public school teachers and to have prescribed exclusive

procedure in administrative investigations involving them.24 Hence,
it is equally erroneous for respondent to argue that the PUP Charter
and R.A. No. 8292 in relation to R.A. 4670 confer upon the BOR of
PUP exclusive jurisdiction to hear disciplinary cases against
university professors and personnel.
In Civil Service Commission v. Sojor,25 an administrative case
was filed against a state university president. There, we struck down
the argument that the BOR has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide an administrative case filed against the respondent. We said:
“In light of the other provisions of R.A. No. 9299, respondent’s argument
that the BOR has exclusive power to remove its university officials must
fail. Section 7 of R.A. No. 9299 states that the power to remove faculty
members, employees, and officials of the university is granted to the BOR
“in addition to its general powers of administration.” This provision is
essentially a reproduction of Section 4 of its predecessor, R.A. No. 8292,
demonstrating that the intent of the law-makers did not change even with
the enactment of the new law. x x x
x x x x
Verily, the BOR of NORSU has the sole power of administration over
the university. But this power is not exclusive in the matter of disciplining
and removing its employee and officials.
Although the BOR of NORSU is given the specific power under R.A.
No. 9299 to discipline its employees and officials, there is no showing that
such power is exclusive. When the law bestows upon a government body
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to
be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that
another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case,
both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.”26 (Emphasis
supplied)
_______________
24 Id., at p. 275.
25 G.R. No. 168766, May 22, 2008, 554 SCRA 160.
26 Id., at p. 176.
99
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 99

But it is not only for this reason that Alfonso’s argument must
fail. Equally significant is the fact that he had already submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the CSC when he filed his counter-
affidavit27 and his motion for reconsideration and requested for a
change of venue, not from the CSC to the BOR of PUP, but from the
CSC-Central Office to the CSC-NCR.28 It was only when his motion
was denied that he suddenly had a change of heart and raised the
question of proper jurisdiction.29 This cannot be allowed because it
would violate the doctrine of res judicata, a legal principle that is
applicable to administrative cases as well.30 At the very least,
respondent’s active participation in the proceedings by seeking
affirmative relief before the CSC already bars him from impugning
the Commission’s authority under the principle of estoppel by
laches.31
In this case, the complaint-affidavits were filed by two PUP
employees. These complaints were not lodged before the
disciplinary tribunal of PUP, but were instead filed before the CSC,
with averments detailing respondent’s alleged violation of civil
service laws, rules and regulations. After a fact-finding
investigation, the Commission found that a prima facie case existed
against Alfonso, prompting the Commission to file a formal charge
against the latter.32 Verily, since the complaints
_______________
27 Supra note 8.
28 Supra note 11.
29 Supra note 14.
30 Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 79538,
October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 673. See also United Housing Corporation v. Dayrit,
G.R. No. 76422, January 22, 1990, 181 SCRA 285; Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 54424, August 31, 1989, 177 SCRA
93; and Boiser v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 76592,
January 13, 1989, 169 SCRA 198.
31 Huertas v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA 256,
270; and Emin v. de Leon, 428 Phil. 172, 173; 378 SCRA 143, 153 (2002).
32 Rollo, pp. 74.
100

were filed directly with the CSC, and the CSC has opted to assume
jurisdiction over the complaint, the CSC’s exercise of jurisdiction
shall be to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent
jurisdiction. To repeat, it may, however, choose to deputize any
department or agency or official or group of officials such as the
BOR of PUP to conduct the investigation, or to delegate the
investigation to the proper regional office.33 But the same is merely
permissive and not mandatory upon the Commission.
We likewise affirm the order of preventive suspension issued by
the CSC-NCR against respondent.
There are two kinds of preventive suspension of government
employees charged with offenses punishable by removal or
suspension, viz.: (1) preventive suspension pending investigation;
and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed
by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after
review, the respondent is exonerated. Preventive suspension pending
investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure intended to enable the
disciplining authority to investigate charges against respondent by
preventing the
_______________
33 Pertinent portion of CSC Resolution No. 061908 dated November 7, 2006,
which dismissed respondent’s request for the transfer of venue, states:
Under Section 6, Rule 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (URACCS), the proper venue of the instant case should have been the
CSC-NCR, the PUP being within its geographical location. Be it stated, however, that
the authority of the regional office to hear a case is simply a delegated authority
resorted to by the Commission pursuant to its power to prescribe, amend and enforce
rules and regulations to effectively carry out its mandate (Section 12(2), Chapter 3,
Title I, Subtitle (A), Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order
No. 292). Said delegated authority does not divest the Commission of its power to
hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on
appeal, including contested appointments, and review decision and actions of its
offices and of the agencies attached to it (Section 12(11), supra).
101
VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 101

latter from intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against

him. If the investigation is not finished and a decision is not
rendered within that period, the suspension will be lifted and the
respondent will automatically be reinstated. If after investigation,
respondent is found innocent of the charges and is exonerated, he
should be reinstated.34
The first kind, subject of the CSC Order against the respondent,
is appropriately covered by Sections 51 and 52 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) which
provide:
“SEC. 51. Preventive Suspension.—The proper disciplining authority

may preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee under his
authority pending an investigation, if the charge against such officer or
employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect
in the performance of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the
respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the
service.
SEC. 52. Lifting of Preventive Suspension. Pending Administrative
Investigation.—When the administrative case against the officer or
employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the
disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of
suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the
respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: Provided, That
when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence
or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be counted in
computing the period of suspension herein provided.”
Respondent was charged with grave misconduct and conduct

prejudicial to the best interest of the service. A person charged with
grave misconduct is put on notice that he stands accused of
misconduct coupled with any of the elements of corruption or willful
intent to violate the law or established
_______________
34 Hon. Gloria v. Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 744, 746; 306 SCRA 287, 297
(1999).
102

rules.35 Meanwhile, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the

service is classified as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty
of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for
the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second
offense.36
In addition to the gravity of the charges against Alfonso, and
equally relevant, is the opportunity available to him to use his
position as Director of the Human Resources Management
Department of the university to exert undue influence or pressure on
the potential witnesses that the complainants may produce, or to
tamper with the documentary evidence that may be used against
him. Preventive suspension is, therefore, necessary so that
respondent’s delicate yet powerful position in the university may not
be used to compromise the integrity and impartiality of the entire
proceedings.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the May 21, 2007
Decision37 and August 23, 2007 Resolution38 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97284 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, Civil Service Commission Resolution Nos.
06182139 and 06190840 dated October 16, 2006 and November 7,
2006, respectively, as well as its Order41 dated December 11, 2006
placing respondent under preventive suspension are hereby
REINSTATED. The CSC is ordered to proceed hearing the
administrative case against respondent with dispatch.
_______________
35 Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005,
471 SCRA 589.
36 Civil Service Commission v. Manzano, G.R. No. 160195, October 30, 2006,
506 SCRA 113, 130.
37 Supra note 1.
38 Supra note 2.
39 Supra note 3.
40 Supra note 4.
41 Supra note 5.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

7 CSC vs. Alfonso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 CSC vs. Alfonso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 CSC vs. Alfonso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/31/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

G.R. No. 179452. June 11, 2009.*

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. LARRY M.

Administrative Law; Civil Service Commission; Jurisdiction; All

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 89

Civil Service Commission vs. Alfonso

the case, although it may opt to deputize a department or an agency to

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Emmanuel Bautista, President of Unyon ng mga Kawani sa PUP,

“1. Special Order No. 1004, s. 2006;

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 91

On August 10, 2006, the Ofﬁce of Legal Affairs (OLA) of the

8 Id., at pp. 113-122.

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aggrieved, respondent ﬁled an omnibus motion for

11 Rollo, pp. 77-93.

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 93

commonly known as the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997.

16 Otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PUP. Hence, they cannot be considered as private citizens in the

The CA ratiocinated that since Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 95

(c) To appoint, on the recommendation of the President of the

This provision in the PUP Charter is substantially in accord with

“Section 4. Powers and Duties of Governing Boards.—The governing

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Sec. 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

As the central personnel agency of the government,21 the CSC

“SECTION 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission.—The

21 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 3.

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 97

We are not unmindful of certain special laws that allow the

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

DepEd) over public school teachers and to have prescribed exclusive

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 99

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 589, JUNE 11, 2009 101

latter from intimidating or in any way inﬂuencing witnesses against

“SEC. 51. Preventive Suspension.—The proper disciplining authority

Respondent was charged with grave misconduct and conduct

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rules.35 Meanwhile, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like