Marcayda v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Executive Order No. 285 abolished the General Services Administration and merged the Government Printing Office (GPO) with other printing units to create the National Printing Office (NPO). Officials and employees of the GPO and PIA-NMPC were retained in a hold-over capacity pending re-appointment to the NPO's new staffing pattern. Petitioner Blanca R. Marcayda, a Budget Examiner III at GPO, was notified on February 29, 1988, that she was not included in the new staffing pattern and was advised to retire. Private respondent Veronica A. Balcos was a Management and Audit Analyst I at GPO. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed her termination to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on March 24, 1988. Pending appeal, the NPO Placement Committee recommended her reappointment to Budget Officer II, a comparable position. On June 1, 1988, private respondent protested petitioner's appointment as Budget Officer II to the OPS Reorganization Appeals Board (OPS-RAB). The CSC approved petitioner's reappointment on September 23, 1988. On May 5, 1989, the CSC resolved CSC Case No. 271, finding private respondent's protest without merit and upholding petitioner's reappointment, stating both positions were comparable. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed by private respondent. Subsequently, on November 10, 1989, the OPS-RAB recommended granting private respondent's protest against petitioner's appointment. This recommendation was affirmed by the Press Secretary on April 19, 1990. Petitioner was notified on April 24, 1990, and immediately appealed to the NPO Director, who informed the Press Secretary that the protest was moot and academic due to the CSC's prior decision. On May 18, 1990, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the CSC's May 5, 1989 resolution, submitting the OPS-RAB recommendation. On June 20, 1990, the CSC issued a resolution in CSC Case No. 672, reconsidering its May 5, 1989 resolution, stating it was premature and that the OPS-RAB decision was final and executory. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this resolution was denied on August 17, 1990. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to nullify the CSC's resolutions in CSC Case No. 672, the OPS-RAB recommendation, and the Press Secretary's memorandum, and to declare valid the CSC's May 5, 1989 resolution and the NPO Director's letter, affirming her appointment as Budget Officer II.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) may set aside or reconsider its own final and executory decision. Whether the protest filed with the OPS Reorganization Appeals Board (OPS-RAB) divested the CSC of jurisdiction over the matter; and whether the resolution of the OPS-RAB, affirmed by the Press Secretary, had become final and executory, precluding the CSC from acting on a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The questioned resolutions of the CSC dated June 20, 1990, and August 17, 1990, in CSC Case No. 672 are declared null and void. The CSC resolution dated May 5, 1989, in CSC Case No. 271, and the letter of the NPO Director dated April 24, 1990, are declared lawful and valid. Petitioner is declared legally and properly appointed to the position of Budget Officer II of the NPO.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CSC may set aside its final and executory decision: The Court held that the CSC has no power or authority to reconsider its decision which has become final and executory. The decision of the CSC dated May 5, 1989, in CSC Case No. 271, finding no merit in the protest of private respondent and upholding petitioner's reappointment, had become final and executory as no appeal was filed by the private respondent within the prescribed period. Even ordinary courts cannot, as a rule, set aside or modify decisions that have become final and executory. The duty of the CSC in such instances is to enforce its final decision rather than disturb it. The lapse of more than a year since the CSC decision became final further strengthens this principle. On the issue of CSC's jurisdiction and the finality of the OPS-RAB resolution: The Court was not persuaded by the contention that the CSC lacked jurisdiction because the protest was initially filed with the OPS-RAB. Although Republic Act 6656 provides for appeals to the appointing authority and then to the CSC, the parties did not question the CSC's assumption of jurisdiction when it was furnished a copy of the protest. Furthermore, private respondent did not seek reconsideration or appeal the CSC's initial decision. The memorandum-recommendation of the OPS-RAB, affirmed by the Press Secretary on April 19, 1990, was only made known to the petitioner on April 24, 1990. On the same day, petitioner appealed to the NPO Director, who correctly informed the Press Secretary that the protest was moot and academic due to the CSC's prior final decision. The CSC's finding that the OPS-RAB memorandum had become final and executory, despite petitioner not having appealed it, was deemed without lawful basis because petitioner had already appealed to the NPO Director, who acted upon it, and the CSC had already definitively ruled on the matter in CSC Case No. 271.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) cannot be set aside or modified by the CSC itself, as its duty in such instances is to enforce its final decision rather than disturb it. The CSC lacks the power or authority to reconsider a decision that has become final and executory, even if a subsequent recommendation from another office suggests otherwise.