Dario vs Mison Digest

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1D CASE: DARIO V MISON TOPIC: Review of the Decisions of the CSC by the Court PROVISION: Art. IX, A, Sec. 7 Digest by Macky Manicad

FACTS: - The case was brought about by the reorganization done during the time of President Corazon Aquino after Martial Law. Actually, the reorganization process started as early as February 25, 1986, when the President, in her first act in office, called upon "all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy resignation(s) beginning with the members of the Supreme Court." Later on, she abolished the Batasang Pambansa and the positions of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the 1973 Constitution. - One of the departments she reorganized was the Ministry of Finance. Under the said Ministry, one of the offices she reorganized was Bureau of Customs and prescribed new staffing pattern thereof. - In line with this, incumbent Customs Commissioner Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum to provide a procedure on implementing the executive orders by the President on reorganization. - As a result, 394 employees of Bureau of Customs were separated from service. - Some of those who were separated from service sought reinstatement from Reorganization Board, the Civil Service Commission and the Court.

- On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement -

of the 279 employees, the 279 private respondents in G.R. No. 85310 (those who sought reinstatement from the Court). On July 15, 1988, Commissioner Mison filed a Motion for Reconsideration w/ the CSC On September 20, 1988, CSC denied Mison’s MR. On September 23, 1988, the Copy of the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration was received by the Bureau October 20, 1988, Mison filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: 1) WON the CSC decision has already attained finality, thus the petition for certiorari of Mison shall be dismissed 2) WON the Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition for certiorari filed by Mison on the decision of CSC reinstating 279 employees HELD AND RATIO: 1) NO. The Civil Service Commission issued its Resolution denying reconsideration on September 20, 1988; a copy of this Resolution was received by the Bureau on September 23, 1988. Hence the Bureau had until October 23, 1988 (w/in 30 days from receipt of copy as mandated by Art. IX, A, Sec. 7) to elevate the matter on certiorari to this Court. Since the Bureau's petition was filed on October 20, 1988, it was filed on time. We must reckon the thirty-day period from receipt of the order of denial. 2) YES. SC accepts Commissioner Mison petition (G.R. No. 85310) which clearly charges the Civil Service Commission with grave abuse of discretion, a proper subject of certiorari, although it may not have so stated in explicit terms. It should also be noted that under the new Constitution, as under the 1973 Charter, "any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari," which, as Aratuc tells us, "technically connotes something less than saying that the same 'shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court,' " which in turn suggests an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45. Therefore, our jurisdiction over cases emanating from the Civil Service Commission is limited to complaints of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, complaints that justify certiorari under Rule 65.

On the ruling on substantial issues:

1. The President could have validly removed government employees, elected or appointed, without cause but only before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987 (De Leon v. Esguerra, supra; Palma-Fernandez vs. De la Paz, supra); in this connection, Section 59 (on non-reappointment of incumbents) of Executive Order No. 127 cannot be a basis for termination; 2. In such a case, dismissed employees shall be paid separation and retirement benefits or upon their option be given reemployment opportunities (CONST. [1987], art. XVIII, sec. 16; Rep. Act No. 6656, sec. 9); 3. From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose the right to reorganize the Government resulting in the separation of career civil service employees [CONST. (1987), supra] provided, that such a reorganization is made in good faith. (Rep. Act No. 6656, supra.)