G.R. No. 108740 December 1, 1993
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD AND SOCORRO V. GREGORIO, respondents.

FACTS

The President of the University of the Philippines (UP) filed an administrative case against private respondent Socorro V. Gregorio for conduct prejudicial to the interest of the university. The charge stemmed from her purchase of a self-built house from the wife of Ignacio P. Hementera on UP Diliman campus land, which sale was allegedly null and void under UP Memorandum No. 83 and her occupancy was without university authority. After investigation by UP’s Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT), which found substantial evidence of guilt, UP President Jose V. Abueva issued an Order dated March 7, 1991, finding Gregorio guilty and imposing a six-month suspension (chargeable against leave credits), an order to vacate the housing unit within 14 days, and to accept a refund of P25,000.00 from Hementera. Gregorio appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB, in its decision dated October 21, 1991, set aside the UP decision, found Gregorio guilty only of violation of reasonable office regulations, and modified the penalty to a reprimand with a warning. UP elevated the MSPB decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, in its Resolution No. 93-006 dated January 5, 1993, dismissed UP’s appeal, holding that UP was not a party adversely affected by the MSPB decision and therefore had no right to appeal, and that the CSC had no appellate jurisdiction over cases where the penalty imposed is suspension of less than thirty days. UP filed the instant petition seeking reversal of the CSC resolution.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Civil Service Commission correctly dismissed UP’s appeal on the grounds that UP is not a party adversely affected by the MSPB decision and that the CSC lacks appellate jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board erred in amending the charge against Gregorio from conduct prejudicial to the service to violation of reasonable office regulations and in modifying the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the CSC resolution.
1. On the right to appeal and CSC jurisdiction: The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right. Under Section 37 of P.D. No. 807 (the Civil Service Decree), the CSC has appellate jurisdiction only over administrative disciplinary cases involving penalties of suspension for more than thirty days, a fine exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion, transfer, removal, or dismissal. Since the MSPB imposed only a reprimand, the decision was final and unappealable to the CSC. Furthermore, under Section 39 of P.D. No. 807, only the “party adversely affected” by the decision may appeal. Citing Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission and Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, the Court held this term refers to the respondent employee against whom the case is filed, not the disciplining authority (UP). Therefore, UP had no right to appeal the MSPB decision to the CSC.
2. On the amendment of the charge and penalty: The MSPB did not err. It is legally permissible for a party to be found guilty of a lesser offense than that charged based on the evidence presented. The MSPB found the evidence insufficient to prove “grave misconduct” or “conduct prejudicial to the interests of the service,” which requires a wrongful or corrupt intention. The act of buying the house, done in good faith, constituted at most an error of judgment or a violation of office regulations. The MSPB’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are accorded finality. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used to correct errors of judgment absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present.