Mendiola v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teodorico E. Mendiola, an employee of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) since 1973, was issued a notice of termination effective April 30, 1988, pursuant to Executive Order No. 127 mandating the reorganization of the Department of Finance. Petitioner appealed his termination, arguing he was denied due process and could have been included in Category I of the EIIB's separation guidelines. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially ruled in favor of petitioner on September 21, 1988, finding his separation illegal due to lack of due process and non-compliance with reorganization rules. The CSC ordered his reinstatement with back salaries. The EIIB filed a motion for reconsideration on October 27, 1988. The CSC granted this motion on February 1, 1989, setting aside its previous resolution. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion on July 30, 1990, seeking to strike off the EIIB's motion for reconsideration and the February 1, 1989 resolution. The CSC denied this motion on June 6, 1991, affirming the legality of petitioner's removal based on loss of confidence for a confidential position. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus seeking to annul the CSC's resolutions of February 1, 1989, and June 6, 1991, and to compel his reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission erred in giving due course to the EIIB's motion for reconsideration and whether the CSC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in altering or reconsidering its judgment which had already become final and executory. Whether the CSC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in acting upon the EIIB's motion for reconsideration without notice to the petitioner. Whether the CSC refused to perform its ministerial duty of issuing a writ of execution to enforce its Resolution of September 21, 1988. Whether the EIIB could rely on Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution or Section 12(11) of the Revised Administrative Code, and whether petitioner's citation of Section 39(a) of Presidential Decree 807 was correct.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission dated February 1, 1989, and June 6, 1991, are declared NULL and VOID. The respondents are ordered to reinstate petitioner Teodorico E. Mendiola to his former position or to an equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and privileges.
Ratio Decidendi
On the CSC's authority to reconsider a final and executory resolution: The Court agreed with the petitioner that an aggrieved party has only fifteen (15) days, not thirty (30) days, to file a motion for reconsideration of a CSC resolution, as provided by CSC Resolution No. 88-135, which specifically governs appeals in cases arising from reorganization. The EIIB's motion for reconsideration, filed on October 27, 1988, was filed beyond the fifteen-day period from its receipt of the September 21, 1988 resolution (which the Court determined to be October 6, 1988). Therefore, the September 21, 1988 resolution had become final and executory by operation of law. The doctrine of finality of judgment, which states that a decision that has become final and executory can no longer be altered or amended by the court or quasi-judicial agency that rendered it, applies equally to quasi-judicial agencies like the CSC. Consequently, the CSC had no power or authority to reconsider its decision after it had become final and executory. On the denial of due process: While the CSC initially heard the EIIB's motion for reconsideration without notice to the petitioner, this defect was cured by the petitioner's subsequent filing of an Omnibus Motion on July 30, 1990. The Court reiterated the ruling in Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission that the lack of notice can be cured when the party is subsequently given a chance to be heard on a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the petitioner cannot successfully invoke denial of due process on this ground. On the CSC's refusal to issue a writ of execution: Since the CSC's Resolution of September 21, 1988, had become final and executory, the CSC lost jurisdiction to alter or amend it. Its only remaining power was to execute the judgment. The prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is a ministerial duty of the court or agency, which can be compelled by mandamus. The CSC's refusal to issue the writ of execution was therefore an abdication of its ministerial duty. On the applicability of cited provisions: The Court clarified that the EIIB could not rely on Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution or Section 12(11) of the Revised Administrative Code, as these provisions pertain to filing petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court, not motions for reconsideration before an administrative office. It also noted that petitioner's citation of Section 39(a) of Presidential Decree 807 was incorrect, as that provision applies to appeals in disciplinary administrative cases, and the present case did not originate from such a proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A resolution of the Civil Service Commission that has become final and executory can no longer be reconsidered or altered by the Commission, as the doctrine of finality of judgment applies equally to quasi-judicial agencies. The prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and its issuance is a ministerial duty compellable by mandamus.