G.R. No. 248852 . March 09, 2022
ATTY. RIZA S. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. WILLIE FERNANDO MAALIW, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On September 28, 1999, respondent Willie Fernando Maaliw filed an administrative complaint against a co-employee at the Land Bank of the Philippines. The complaint was submitted for decision on January 21, 2000. On June 16, 2014, more than 14 years later, the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) rendered a Decision dismissing Maaliw’s complaint for being insufficient in form. The decision was signed by Director Lydia Castillo and prepared by petitioner Atty. Riza S. Fernandez. Director Castillo was reassigned to the CSC-NCR’s Legal Services Division (LSD) on December 6, 2012, and Fernandez was employed there on February 11, 2013. Due to the extreme delay, Maaliw filed a Complaint Affidavit dated November 9, 2015, against Fernandez and Castillo for neglect of duty and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 . The complaint was referred to the CSC. In their Joint Comment, Fernandez and Castillo denied liability, arguing the complaint was pending before their assumption, highlighting the office’s high caseload and limited personnel, and noting Maaliw failed to appeal the 2014 dismissal. On August 31, 2016, the CSC dismissed Maaliw’s complaint against Fernandez and Castillo, recognizing a violation of the right to speedy disposition but attributing the delay to systemic issues and not to the individual respondents. Maaliw’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Maaliw then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 14, 2019, the CA reversed the CSC, finding Fernandez and Castillo guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and imposing a fine equivalent to three months’ salary. Fernandez’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Fernandez filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the CSC decision was final and not appealable, that her right to due process was violated, and that she should not be held liable for the delay.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Maaliw’s appeal assailing the CSC’s dismissal of his complaint.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals violated Fernandez’s right to due process in finding her guilty of simple neglect of duty.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in attributing the delay in the disposition of Maaliw’s complaint to Fernandez and finding her guilty of simple neglect of duty.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the appealability of the CSC’s dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC’s Order dismissing the complaint for lack of a prima facie case was an interlocutory order and not a final judgment. Following the doctrine in Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvaña, an order dismissing a complaint for lack of a prima facie case is merely a preliminary determination that does not decide the case on the merits and is therefore not appealable. The proper remedy for an aggrieved complainant is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal. However, the Court treated Maaliw’s petition before the CA as having been filed under Rule 65 in the interest of justice.
2. On the violation of due process: The Court held that Fernandez’s right to due process was not violated. The CSC’s dismissal of the complaint for “lack of a prima facie case” meant there was no finding of administrative liability, and thus no formal charge was necessary. The proceedings were correctly terminated at the preliminary investigation stage. Fernandez was given the opportunity to be heard through her Joint Comment, which satisfied the requirements of due process at that stage.
3. On liability for Simple Neglect of Duty: The Supreme Court found that the CA erred in holding Fernandez administratively liable. The delay of over 14 years in resolving the original complaint occurred predominantly before Fernandez assumed her position on February 11, 2013. The CSC-NCR rendered its decision on June 16, 2014, meaning Fernandez had the case for approximately one year and four months. The Court recognized the systemic problems faced by the CSC-NCR LSD, including an overwhelming docket of aged cases and a severe lack of personnel. Under these circumstances, and considering Fernandez was a relatively new employee tasked with addressing a backlog, the delay could not be solely attributed to her personal neglect. The Court emphasized that administrative liability must be based on substantial evidence of gross negligence, which was not present. The CSC’s finding that the delay was justified by the office’s plight was reinstated.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated August 31, 2016, and Resolution dated December 16, 2016, of the Civil Service Commission, which dismissed the administrative complaint against Atty. Riza S. Fernandez, are REINSTATED.