GR L 16173; (December,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16173 December 23, 1961
PASCUALA R. VITO, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HONORABLE ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Pascuala Vito, a civil service eligible, was dismissed from her position in the Manila city government by Mayor Arsenio Lacson on June 11, 1954, following an administrative charge he filed against her. Vito appealed to the Executive Secretary. On May 16, 1955, Executive Secretary Mariano Yengco, Jr. rendered a decision modifying Mayor Lacson’s penalty, imposing only a two-month suspension without pay and ordering Vito’s immediate reinstatement. Mayor Lacson received a copy of this decision on May 23, 1955.
On June 29, 1955, thirty-seven days after receipt, Mayor Lacson filed a motion for reconsideration of Secretary Yengco’s decision. This motion was denied. He subsequently filed a second motion for reconsideration. On February 8, 1956, a new Executive Secretary, Fortunato de Leon, issued a resolution reversing Yengco’s decision and reinstating Vito’s dismissal. Vito’s petition before the Court of First Instance challenging this reversal was dismissed, prompting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the rules and regulations governing appeals in administrative cases from decisions of the Mayor of Manila, specifically the five-day period to file a motion for reconsideration of the Executive Secretary’s decision, apply to the Mayor when he is the complaining party aggrieved by a decision favorable to the employee.
RULING
Yes, the rules apply to the Mayor. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal. The pertinent rules, promulgated pursuant to the Revised Charter of Manila, prescribe that a petition for reconsideration of the Executive Secretary’s decision must be filed within five days from receipt. The rules refer to the party appealing as the “respondent-appellant,” which in this context is the employee-respondent in the original administrative case. However, the Court held that a rational and impartial application of the rules requires that they apply equally to any party aggrieved by the decision, including the Mayor as complainant. To hold otherwise would be discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause.
Since Mayor Lacson filed his motion for reconsideration thirty-seven days after receipt, far beyond the five-day period, the petition was filed out of time. Consequently, Executive Secretary Yengco’s decision modifying the penalty had already become final and executory. Therefore, Executive Secretary de Leon acted without authority in issuing the subsequent resolution reversing the final decision. The resolutions issued by Secretary de Leon were set aside, and the decision of Secretary Yengco ordering Vito’s reinstatement was upheld.