GR 166365; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166365 , September 30, 2005
Duty Free Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Rossano J. Mojica, Respondent.
FACTS
On November 28, 1997, the Discipline Committee of Duty Free Philippines (DFP) found Stock Clerk Rossano J. Mojica guilty of Neglect of Duty for causing considerable damage to or loss of DFP’s property. He was penalized with forced resignation, forfeiting all benefits except salary and accrued leave credits. After being formally informed on January 14, 1998, Mojica filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled in Mojica’s favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this, finding the dismissal valid. Mojica then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which agreed with the Labor Arbiter, finding no gross negligence or connivance in pilferage to warrant dismissal. DFP elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by respondent Rossano J. Mojica, a civil service employee of Duty Free Philippines.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction is lodged with the Civil Service Commission. The Court annulled and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Court held that DFP was created under Executive Order No. 46, which vested its establishment and operation in the Department of Tourism through its implementing arm, the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). Under Presidential Decree No. 564, PTA is a corporate body attached to the DOT, and its personnel are governed by a merit system in accordance with civil service rules. Since DFP is under the exclusive authority of PTA, its officials and employees are subject to Civil Service rules and regulations. The Court cited relevant laws, including P.D. No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree), E.O. No. 180, and E.O. No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987), which establish the Civil Service Commission as the central personnel agency with jurisdiction over the discipline of civil servants, encompassing all government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Applying precedents such as Zamboanga City Water District v. Buat and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that the hiring and firing of employees of such government corporations are governed by Civil Service Law. Therefore, Mojica’s proper recourse was to follow the procedure under DFP’s merit system and the Civil Service rules and regulations, not to file a complaint with the Labor Arbiter.