GR L 28870; (September, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28870 and G.R. No. L-39149, September 6, 1985
AMADO D. TOLENTINO, petitioner-appellant, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, GILBERTO TEODORO and ANGEL PENANO, respondents-appellees. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and GILBERTO TEODORO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, THE SSS EMPLOYEES’ LABOR UNION-NLU, and AMADO TOLENTINO, respondents.
FACTS
In G.R. No. L-28870, Amado Tolentino, a civil service eligible employed by the Social Security System (SSS), was dismissed in 1966 after being found guilty of dishonesty by the SSS Administrator, with the dismissal affirmed by the Social Security Commission. Tolentino filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, arguing that the SSS lacked jurisdiction to discipline him. He contended that under the Civil Service Act of 1959 (Republic Act No. 2260), the power to decide administrative cases against civil service employees was vested exclusively in the Civil Service Commissioner. The CFI dismissed his petition, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Social Security Commission, a body of co-equal rank.
Simultaneously, in G.R. No. L-39149, an unfair labor practice case was filed by the SSS Employees’ Union and Tolentino with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the SSS, challenging the dismissal as union-related. The CIR ruled in favor of Tolentino, ordering his reinstatement with back wages after finding the dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. The SSS and its Administrator appealed this CIR decision to the Supreme Court, arguing the CIR lacked jurisdiction over the disciplinary case.
ISSUE
The core issue consolidated in these petitions is whether the Social Security System, a government-owned or controlled corporation, had the jurisdiction to investigate, decide, and impose the penalty of dismissal on a civil service eligible employee like Amado Tolentino, or whether such power resided exclusively with the Civil Service Commission.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tolentino in G.R. No. L-28870 and set aside the CIR decision in G.R. No. L-39149. The legal logic hinges on the hierarchy of laws and jurisdictional principles. At the time of Tolentino’s dismissal in 1966, the governing law was the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260). Section 16 of this Act explicitly vested original jurisdiction to investigate and decide disciplinary cases involving civil service employees in the Commissioner of Civil Service. While the Act allowed department heads to investigate and decide, their decisions imposing removal were always subject to review by the Civil Service Commission. The SSS, as a government-owned corporation, was an instrumentality of the government and its employees were part of the civil service. Therefore, the SSS Administrator and Commission did not possess original and exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction; the ultimate authority rested with the Civil Service Commission.
Consequently, Resolution No. 1003 of the SSS Commission dismissing Tolentino was void for having been issued without jurisdiction. The CFI of Rizal was correct in dismissing the mandamus petition, but for the wrong reason; the proper remedy was to annul the SSS resolution for lack of jurisdiction. Regarding the CIR case, the Court held that since the SSS lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Tolentino in the first place, the CIR likewise had no jurisdiction to entertain the unfair labor practice case stemming from that void dismissal. Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the commencement of the action, and under R.A. No. 2260, the CIR had no power over the disciplinary