G.R. No. 79072 January 10, 1994
RODOLFO ENRIQUE AND JESUS BASILIO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Rodolfo Enrique and Jesus Basilio, along with other employees of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 3, were charged by the CSC motu proprio with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Being Notoriously Undesirable, Receiving Gifts for Personal Use in the Course of Official Duties, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charges alleged that sometime before or during November 1983, they conspired to assist some examinees of the 1983 PBET by assigning them to specific “chocolate rooms” for a fee of P500 to P1,000, where “experts” were assigned to help answer examination questions, and they assigned room examiners and proctors for a consideration of P250 each to facilitate the operation. The CSC issued an order for their preventive suspension. Petitioners denied the charges, moved for dismissal or a formal hearing, but the CSC denied the request for a formal hearing and ordered summary proceedings under Section 40 of P.D. No. 807, directing them to submit evidence. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing Section 40 was inapplicable and their constitutional rights would be jeopardized, but it was denied. They submitted additional evidence, including sworn statements from co-employees attesting to their integrity. The CSC, in Resolution No. 84-411, dismissed petitioners from service. Their appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) was denied, affirming their dismissal but ordering the reinstatement of their co-respondents. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CSC had original jurisdiction over the administrative case against petitioners.
2. Whether petitioners were denied due process of law.
3. Whether the dismissal of petitioners through a summary proceeding by the CSC was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court.
1. On jurisdiction: The CSC had original jurisdiction. Section 37(b) of P.D. No. 807 grants heads of departments, agencies, and instrumentalities jurisdiction to investigate and decide disciplinary actions against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. As petitioners were CSC employees, disciplinary jurisdiction was vested in the CSC head. While P.D. No. 1409 created the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and vested it with power to hear administrative cases, it did not impliedly repeal Section 37(b) of P.D. No. 807. Repeals by implication are not favored. The provisions were reconciled, finding that P.D. Nos. 807 and 1409 vest concurrent original jurisdiction over disciplinary matters to both the CSC and the MSPB with respect to CSC officials and employees. This concurrent jurisdiction is further supported by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978.
2. On due process: Petitioners were not denied due process. They were informed of the charges, given the opportunity to present their defenses, filed an answer, submitted additional evidence, moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, and appealed to the IAC, which considered their appeal. Thus, any supposed denial of administrative due process was cured.
3. On summary proceeding: The summary proceeding was proper under Section 40 of P.D. No. 807, which was the operative law at the time the acts were committed in 1983, prior to its repeal by R.A. No. 6654 in 1988. Section 40 allowed immediate removal or dismissal without formal investigation under certain circumstances, such as when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong. The Court sustained the validity of Section 40 provided respondents are informed of the charges and given an opportunity to present their side, which was complied with in this case.