G.R. No. 167726 ; July 20, 2006
ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Represented by ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in his capacity as Secretary General, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto M. Villanueva, a married Legislative Assistant II at the House of Representatives, was charged with Grave Misconduct and Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. The charges stemmed from an incident on October 16, 1997, where House security officers found Villanueva and a married female confidential assistant, both naked and asleep, on a couch in a Representative’s office after hours. The House Disciplinary Board initially suspended him for one year but, upon reconsideration, increased the penalty to dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, which the Speaker affirmed.
Villanueva appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC modified the penalty, finding him guilty only of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and imposing a one-year suspension. Since Villanueva had already been out of service for longer, the CSC ordered his reinstatement without back wages. The House then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the CSC’s reduction of the penalty. The appellate court granted the petition, reinstated the House Disciplinary Board’s decision, and ordered Villanueva’s dismissal, citing the gravity of the offense and analogous case law involving judicial personnel.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the House’s petition for certiorari and in imposing the penalty of dismissal instead of suspension for the offense of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted Villanueva’s petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the CSC resolutions. The Court held that the CSC correctly imposed the penalty of suspension. The legal logic is anchored on the applicable civil service rules and the principle of administrative finality. Under Section 52(A)(15) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the offense of “Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct” is classified as a less grave offense, for which the prescribed penalty is suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. The CSC, in the exercise of its expertise and jurisdiction as the central personnel agency, properly applied this rule. The Court emphasized that while the act was reprehensible, the penalty must conform to the law’s specific classification. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on a case involving the Supreme Court’s administrative supervision over judiciary personnel, as that was an exercise of the Court’s constitutional administrative authority, not a judicial review of the CSC’s quasi-judicial function. The CSC’s factual finding and penalty imposition were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion; hence, certiorari did not lie.