G.R. No. 105293 December 7, 1993
TOMAS B. CARLOS, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION (DOTC), AND ROGELIO A. DAYAN in his official capacity as General Manager of PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomas B. Carlos was appointed as an Engineer of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in 1976 and promoted to Supervising Civil Engineer in 1988. On September 19, 1988, respondent PPA General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan filed an administrative complaint against petitioner and another employee with the DOTC Secretary for dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension on the same day. The DOTC Secretary rendered a decision on November 23, 1988, finding petitioner guilty, which was upheld on motion for reconsideration on August 3, 1989. Petitioner appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which set aside the DOTC decision for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent Dayan appealed the MSPB decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which reversed the MSPB and reinstated the DOTC Secretary’s decision. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC. Hence, this petition for certiorari. The Solicitor General, in his comment, agreed with petitioner that the DOTC Secretary lacked original jurisdiction to discipline him, citing the Court’s ruling in Beja v. Court of Appeals, and manifested that the PPA had set aside the DOTC decision and would conduct a reinvestigation. However, the Solicitor General argued that petitioner was not entitled to back wages pending the reinvestigation. Petitioner insisted he was entitled to back wages, claiming he had been cleared by the PPA and that his co-respondent had been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan in a related criminal case.

ISSUE

Whether the DOTC Secretary had original jurisdiction to discipline petitioner, a PPA employee below the rank of Assistant Manager, and whether petitioner is entitled to back wages.

RULING

The Court ruled that the DOTC Secretary does not have original jurisdiction to discipline petitioner. Citing Beja v. Court of Appeals and Corona v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that under P.D. No. 857 (the PPA Charter), the power to investigate PPA personnel below the rank of Assistant Manager belongs to the PPA General Manager, subject to the approval of the PPA Board of Directors. The DOTC Secretary’s jurisdiction is merely appellate. Therefore, the questioned CSC resolutions, which upheld the DOTC Secretary’s decision, were reversed and set aside. On the issue of back wages, the Court ruled that petitioner is not entitled thereto. There was no evidence on record of any decision by the PPA General Manager dismissing the administrative complaint against petitioner, nor any resolution by the PPA Board of Directors approving such action. The acquittal of petitioner’s co-respondent in the criminal case by the Sandiganbayan does not warrant dismissal of the administrative case, as the quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings (preponderance of evidence) is less than that in criminal cases (proof beyond reasonable doubt). Petitioner’s recourse lies with the PPA for the proper administrative investigation.