G.R. No. 169604 ; March 6, 2007
NELSON P. COLLANTES, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nelson Collantes, a Career Executive Service Officer (CESO), was appointed as DND Undersecretary in 1998. He later resigned from this post. In 2001, he filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 62874) seeking reinstatement, claiming constructive dismissal. The CA dismissed his petition, ruling he had effectively resigned and that the appointed successor did not unlawfully hold the office. Collantes appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 149883) but subsequently withdrew it, rendering the CA decision final.
Simultaneously, Collantes sought relief from the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In 2001, the CSC issued Resolution No. 011364, ruling his relief amounted to illegal dismissal and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. Upon motion by the DND, which pointed out the final CA decision, the CSC reversed itself in 2002 via Resolution No. 021482, setting aside its prior ruling. Collantes challenged this reversal before the Court of Appeals, which upheld the CSC. Collantes then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier resolution which had granted relief to Collantes.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held that the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier ruling. The core legal principle is that when two conflicting decisions have attained finality, the later decision prevails. The CA decision in the quo warranto case (declaring Collantes had resigned) became final on November 28, 2001, upon the Supreme Court’s notation of his withdrawal of appeal. The CSC’s first resolution (finding illegal dismissal) was issued on August 13, 2001, but its execution was still pending when the CA decision became final.
The CSC correctly recognized that its earlier resolution could not stand as it was irreconcilable with the final judicial decree. To allow its enforcement would create an absurd situation where Collantes would be reinstated by executive order despite a judicial declaration that he voluntarily resigned and had no right to the office. The CSC’s duty to correct its error was imperative to prevent confusion and uphold the rule of law. Its reversal was a proper exercise of its jurisdiction to align its orders with a final judgment, not an act of caprice. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended its action.