Navarro v. Civil Service Commission 226 SCRA 522

Facts:

On June 21, 1989, cable drums were stolen worth P21, 250 from Ford Stockyard in Mariveles Bataan. The cable drums were owned by Takaoka Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. The suspect for the stolen cable drums is the Petitioner Mario Navarro.

On October 18, 1990, the Senior Deputy Administrator of Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) approved an Order terminating the services of Navarro and finding him guilty as charged.

Navarro appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). On July 25, 1991, the MSPB rendered its decision setting aside the Order issued by the Senior Deputy Administrator of EPZA on October 18, 1990. The decision of the MSPB also reinstated Navarro with payment and back wages and other benefits due him from the time of his dismissal. On December 11, 1991, the MSPB denied the motion for reconsideration of the EPZA.

On November 6, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Bataan dismisses the criminal case filed against Navarro and his co-accused for qualified theft. EPZA sought to reverse the decision of the MSPB before the CSC and on July 16, 1992, the CSC rendered its decision setting aside the MSPB’s decision dated December 11, 1991 and the CSC found Navarro guilty of grave misconduct and reimposed the penalty of dismissal. The CSC also denied in its Resolution dated September 11, 1992 the motion for reconsideration of Navarro.

In the recourse, Navarro claims that the CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction in deciding the case without considering other pertinent evidence but the EPZA filed for the dismissal of the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a manifestation to support the plea of the Petitioner in the argument that there can be no appeal in the MSPB’s decision exonerating Navarro. On May 6, 1993, the OSG granted the CSC 10 days to comment but no comment was filed and on August 5, 1993, the CSC filed for extension time to comment but no comment was still filed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Civil Service Commission and the Export Processing Zone Authority acted without jurisdiction.

HELD:

The MSPB rendered a favorable decision for Navarro and this fact alone should have prevented EPZA from appealing to the Commission on the bases of prevailing jurisprudence.

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 and P.D. 807 does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees. The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative cases involving suspension for more than thirty days or removal or dismissal from office. P.D. 807 provides that appeals shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision. The party adversely affected by the decision refers to the government employee whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action.

EPZA, for appealing MSPB’s decision and exonerating Navarro from administrative charge and CSC, for taking recognizance of, and deciding the appeal shows that both EPZA and CSC acted without jurisdiction.