G.R. No. 155952 ; October 4, 2007
JUANITO A. RUBIO, petitioner, vs. PIO L. MUNAR, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Pio L. Munar, Jr., a Utility Foreman at the Ilocos Regional Hospital, filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification, and oppression against the hospital’s Chief, Juanito A. Rubio, and two other officers. The complaint stemmed from Rubio’s act of demoting Munar to Utility Worker I based on a recommendation from the Hospital Credentials Committee, which assessed Munar’s performance as unsatisfactory. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office conducted a formal investigation. The Hearing Officer’s Investigation Report, approved by the Regional Director, found insufficient evidence to hold Rubio liable.
The Investigation Report was forwarded to the CSC Central Office, which, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, issued a Resolution finding Rubio guilty of simple misconduct for imposing demotion without a formal charge and a proper investigation, thereby violating Munar’s right to due process. The penalty was modified to a fine equivalent to three months’ salary. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s finding that Rubio is guilty of simple misconduct.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC Central Office’s Resolutions despite a claimed lack of jurisdiction to review the Regional Office’s report.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of simple misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. The CSC and CA correctly found that Rubio’s act of demoting Munar as a disciplinary sanction, without any formal charge and the requisite investigation, constituted a denial of administrative due process. This unlawful behavior, absent the elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law that would make it grave, is properly classified as simple misconduct. The Court deferred to the concurrent factual findings of the CSC and the CA, finding no reason to disturb them.
On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the CSC Central Office acted within its original, not appellate, jurisdiction. The Regional Office did not render a final decision or resolution; it merely submitted an Investigation Report to the Central Office as required by the Uniform Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the CSC Central Office’s Resolutions were rendered in the exercise of its original authority over the case, not as a review of an appealed decision. Therefore, there was no jurisdictional error. Petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings before the Central Office also estopped him from questioning its jurisdiction.