G.R. No. 198682 ; April 10, 2013
FRANCISCO C. ADALIM, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO TANINAS, JORGE ORITA, MA. IRMA DAIZ (deceased), YOLANDO DEGUINION, GRACE LIM, EMMA T ANINAS, ISIDRO BUSA, MA. NALYN DOTING CO, ESTER ULTRA, FRANCISCO ESPORAS, ENRICO BEDIASAY, JESUS CHERREGUINE,* AIDA EVIDENTE, RODRIGO TANIÑAS, VIRGILIO ADENIT, CLARITA DOCENA, ERENE DOCENA, GUIO BALICHA, LUZ BACULA, PERFECTO MAGRO, ANACLETO EBIT, DOLORES PENAFLOR, ERWENIA BALMES, CECILIO CEBUANO, MA. ELENA ABENIS, DANILO ALEGRE, and THE COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH DIVISION), Respondents.

FACTS

During the 10 May 2004 elections, Diego Lim was proclaimed Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar. Petitioner Francisco C. Adalim, a candidate for the same position, filed an election protest. On 5 August 2005, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Adalim and declared him the winning candidate. Lim appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec). On 11 August 2005, the RTC granted Adalim’s motion for execution pending appeal. Adalim issued memoranda on 13 and 15 August 2005 directing all municipal employees to report to a temporary relocation at Cyrus Hotel and to log in and out there. On 15 August 2005, Lim filed a petition before the Comelec, which issued a twenty-day Status Quo Order effective 23 August to 12 September 2005. On 24 October 2005, Adalim issued a memorandum directing employees to submit their Daily Time Records (DTRs) or face non-payment of salaries. A certification dated 23 November 2005 listed respondent employees as having no DTRs for August to October 2005. On the same day, Adalim issued memoranda dropping the respondent employees from the rolls due to absence without official leave (AWOL). The respondent employees appealed to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. VIII, claiming the memoranda were issued without due process and authority, and that they were regularly reporting for work at the municipal building until Adalim prevented their entry on 7 March 2006. The CSCRO granted their appeal and ordered reinstatement with back salaries. Adalim appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC initially reversed the CSCRO but later, in Resolution No. 09-0262 and No. 09-1197, directed Adalim to reinstate the employees with back pay, modifying the ruling for one deceased and one retired employee. Adalim filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it and affirmed the CSC resolutions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the appeal of respondent employees despite being filed out of time and without timely payment of the appeal fee.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC decision which allegedly admitted issues not presented in the pleadings.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the appeal when the issue of who was the duly elected mayor was still pending.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
1. On the timeliness and payment of the appeal fee: The Court ruled that administrative investigations are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure. The CSC has the discretion to relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. The respondent employees substantially complied by eventually paying the appeal fee, and their appeal was filed within a reasonable period considering the circumstances. The CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the appeal.
2. On the authority to drop employees from the rolls: The Court held that Adalim had no valid authority to drop the respondent employees from the rolls for AWOL. The writ of execution pending appeal did not automatically confer upon Adalim the right to exercise the powers of mayor to the exclusion of Lim, as the appeal rendered the RTC decision not yet final. The Status Quo Order from the Comelec further complicated the authority issue. The employees’ failure to report to the temporary station at Cyrus Hotel was justified as they continued to report to the municipal building, their official workplace, and were following the incumbent mayor, Lim. Their absences were not unauthorized.
3. On the procedural issue of unpleaded matters: The Court found that the CSC did not err in considering the issue of the validity of Adalim’s authority. This issue was inherent in the employees’ claim that the dismissal was without authority and due process. The CSC’s ruling was based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
The Court emphasized that dropping an employee from the rolls for AWOL is a dismissal that requires the employee to have incurred at least thirty days of unauthorized absence. The respondent employees were not AWOL as they were reporting to their official station. The CSC and CA correctly ordered their reinstatement with back salaries and benefits.