Cordero v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cornelio R. Cordero, then Chief of Police of Caloocan, Rizal, was charged in February 1939 with corruption of public office and abuse of authority by a municipal councilor, Alfredo de Lara. An investigation was conducted, and the Provincial Inspector forwarded the records to the Commissioner of Civil Service. Procedural History: On January 23, 1940, the Commissioner of Civil Service exonerated Cordero from all charges, finding them unsubstantiated. De Lara, dissatisfied, appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals (CSBA) without Cordero's knowledge. On November 22, 1940, the CSBA reversed the Commissioner's decision and ordered Cordero's dismissal. The Petition: Cordero filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CSBA acted with grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its powers by reversing the Commissioner's decision. He contended that paragraph 24 of Executive Order No. 175 declared the Commissioner's decisions final. He also noted that he had resigned to run for Mayor of Caloocan and was elected, but this resignation occurred before the CSBA's decision was rendered.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Board of Appeals had the authority to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service. Whether a writ of certiorari was the proper remedy for the petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The Court found no error in the CSBA's decision and ordered the costs to be borne by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Board of Appeals (CSBA) possessed the authority to review and reverse decisions of the Commissioner of Civil Service. While Executive Order No. 175, paragraph 24, stated that the Commissioner's decisions were final, the Court found that Executive Order No. 39, which was in effect prior to Executive Order No. 175, explicitly created the CSBA with the power and authority to pass upon all appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Civil Service. The Court interpreted Executive Order No. 175 as applying only to investigations concerning those not eligible for civil service, while Executive Order No. 39 provided a broader appellate mechanism. Therefore, the CSBA's action was within its legal mandate. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari was not the proper remedy for the petitioner. The Court pointed out that Commonwealth Act No. 598, enacted on August 19, 1940, provided a specific remedy of appeal to the President of the Philippines from decisions of the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Since such an adequate remedy by appeal was available, the petitioner could not resort to a writ of certiorari, which is only available when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Furthermore, the petitioner had not shown that he sought a reconsideration of the CSBA's decision or brought to its attention the alleged fact that the Caloocan police had not yet been reorganized, which he claimed was a basis for the Commissioner's exoneration.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Board of Appeals (CSBA) had the authority to hear and decide appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Civil Service, notwithstanding provisions in Executive Order No. 175 suggesting finality. This authority was derived from Executive Order No. 39, which explicitly granted the CSBA the power to pass upon all appeals from the Commissioner's decisions. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy when an adequate remedy by appeal exists, as provided by Commonwealth Act No. 598, which allowed appeals to the President from decisions of the CSBA.