CASE DIGEST : BERCES VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MAYOR OF TABACO CITY GR 222557 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 222557. September 29, 2021 ]

ENGR. JUAN B. BERCES, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE MAYOR OF TABACO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : Engr. Juan B. Berces, City Planning and Development Officer of Tabaco City, was administratively charged after he and two co-employees were caught on August 5, 2011 drinking inside the City Planning and Development Office in violation of LGU memorandum orders prohibiting such acts; despite his apology and admission of a lapse of judgment, Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro formally charged him with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and dismissed him from service on February 13, 2012. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially downgraded his liability to Simple Misconduct, finding no corrupt motive and no direct relation to his official duties, and imposed a six-month suspension with reinstatement, but upon the former mayor’s motion for reconsideration—which was later sought to be withdrawn by the succeeding mayor—the CSC reversed itself and reinstated the penalty of dismissal, ruling that holding a drinking session in the office involved misuse of government property and funds. Berces challenged the CSC ruling via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, but the CA dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy, holding that he should have filed a Rule 43 petition for review, and later denied reconsideration; meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General agreed that the procedural remedy was incorrect but argued, in the interest of justice, that Berces should only be liable for simple misconduct, while Mayor Lagman-Luistro maintained that dismissal for grave misconduct was proper.

ISSUE : WON petitioner was correctly found guilty of grave misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service along with the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.

HELD : The Court held that while CSC decisions are generally reviewable via a Rule 43 petition and not by certiorari under Rule 65, the Court of Appeals erred in outrightly dismissing Berces’s petition on procedural grounds because substantial justice warranted a relaxation of the rules, considering his 15 years of government service and the nullity of the assailed CSC resolution. It ruled that Mayor Demetriou, as successor mayor, validly withdrew former Mayor Lagman-Luistro’s motion for reconsideration of CSC Decision No. 130159 pursuant to Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, thereby leaving no pending motion that could prevent said decision from attaining finality. Consequently, CSC Decision No. 130159—finding Berces liable only for simple misconduct and imposing a six-month suspension—became final and executory, rendering CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which reinstated the penalty of dismissal, void for violating the doctrine of immutability of judgments. The Court further clarified that Berces’s act of drinking inside the office after office hours did not constitute grave misconduct for lack of corruption or willful intent, and was not even misconduct strictly speaking as it bore no direct relation to official duties, though the final finding of simple misconduct could no longer be disturbed due to finality. Accordingly, the Court reversed the CA, declared CSC Resolution No. 1301575 void, and reinstated CSC Decision No. 130159.