G.R. No. L-26396 December 28, 1970
ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HON. ANDRES REYES, Presiding Judge, Branch VI, CFI, Rizal, et al., respondent-appellees.

G.R. Nos. L-27016-27 December 28, 1970
ABELARDO SUBIDO, as Commissioner of Civil Service, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

These are three interrelated cases. In G.R. No. L-26396, Dr. Antonio Rodriguez appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing his petition for certiorari against Commissioner Abelardo Subido regarding Subido’s decision in two administrative cases against him. In G.R. Nos. L-27026 and L-27027, Commissioner Subido filed original petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the Civil Service Board of Appeals’ act of taking cognizance of Rodriguez’s appeal from Subido’s decision.
Dr. Rodriguez was Medical Adviser in the Bureau of Medical Services and was detailed as head of the National Mental Hospital. Two administrative cases were filed against him: Case No. R-23237 (July 8, 1960) and Case No. 24354 (January 23, 1962). In Case No. 23237, an investigating committee created by the Secretary of Health found Rodriguez innocent, and the Secretary exonerated him. However, Civil Service Commissioner Amado del Rosario, in a decision dated May 17, 1962, found Rodriguez guilty of “indiscretion” and imposed an admonition. Rodriguez moved for reconsideration but later withdrew it on February 22, 1963. The withdrawal was initially granted on March 18, 1963, but Acting Commissioner Subido revoked the grant on May 6, 1963.
In Case No. 24354, the Secretary of Health created an investigating committee with instructions to determine if there were sufficient grounds for a formal investigation. Based on Rodriguez’s written explanation alone, the committee recommended exoneration, which the Secretary concurred with and indorsed to the Civil Service Commissioner.
On September 12, 1963, Commissioner Subido rendered a joint decision in both cases. In Case No. 23237, he found Rodriguez guilty of misconduct for loaning government materials, a charge previously not found guilty by others. In Case No. 24354, he found Rodriguez guilty of electioneering. The penalty was dismissal, ordered immediately executed. Rodriguez filed a petition for certiorari in the CFI on September 14, 1963, which issued an injunction. The CFI later dismissed the petition on February 23, 1966, for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Rodriguez then appealed Subido’s decision to the Civil Service Board of Appeals on February 23, 1966.
Commissioner Subido sought to dismiss the appeal before the Board as out of time, but the Board refused. Subido then filed petitions in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a restraining order on January 5, 1967, but the Board had already decided the appeal on January 3, 1967, declaring Subido’s decision null and void and ordering Rodriguez’s reinstatement.

ISSUE

1. Whether the decision of Commissioner Subido was rendered with jurisdiction and/or due process.
2. Whether the appeal taken by Dr. Rodriguez to the Civil Service Board of Appeals was timely.

RULING

1. Regarding Administrative Case No. 23237, the Supreme Court held that the decision of Commissioner Amado del Rosario dated May 17, 1962, had already become final and was beyond Subido’s jurisdiction to set aside. Rodriguez’s motion for reconsideration was withdrawn on February 22, 1963, which was a matter of right, making the del Rosario decision final. A letter from the complainant on December 20, 1962, asking for revaluation, did not keep the case open, as it was not a timely motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Subido’s decision of September 12, 1963, reconsidering the final del Rosario decision, was rendered without jurisdiction.
2. Regarding Administrative Case No. 24354, the Supreme Court held that Subido’s decision violated due process as it was rendered without investigation and without affording Rodriguez an opportunity to defend himself. The Secretary of Health’s directive required the committee to determine if there were sufficient grounds for a formal investigation. The committee, based only on Rodriguez’s written explanation, recommended exoneration. Subido’s decision, finding guilt without a formal investigation, denied Rodriguez his right to a hearing. The argument that Rodriguez failed to elect a formal investigation was misplaced, as the procedural stage required the committee to first determine the necessity of an investigation.
3. Regarding the timeliness of the appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that Rodriguez’s appeal filed on February 23, 1966, from Subido’s decision received on September 14, 1963, was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by law. The filing of the petition for certiorari in the CFI on September 14, 1963, did not interrupt the running of the period for administrative appeal. The Board of Appeals, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Board’s decision of January 3, 1967, was null and void.
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals and reinstated the decision of Commissioner Subido dated September 12, 1963, dismissing Rodriguez from the service. The temporary restraining order was made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs.