University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 64 Case Digest

FACTS:

Herein respondents Camilo Peña and Domingo Cajipe (and seven others) were administratively charged and investigated by a UP-PGH Investigating Committee   for “grave misconduct and dishonesty” and “infidelity in the custody of public documents" in their capacity as Assistant Cashier and Special Disbursing Officer and Collection Officer, respectively, of the PGH.

After several hearings, the Board of Regents adopted a resolution approving the report of the committee and fixing a penalty of dismissal for the respondents. Herein respondents then filed a petition for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the UP President from dismissing them and nullify the findings of the investigating committee. They claimed that, as civil service employees, the power to dismiss them did not belong to the UP President but to the Civil Service Commissioner, subject to appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The respondents also filed a supplemental petition for injunction, impleading the Board of Regents of the UP and the Director of the PGH as additional respondents. The trial court granted the both original and supplementary petition.

Herein petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals but the trial court's decision was sustained. Hence, the instant petition for Review by Certiorari by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

WON the dismissal of the respondents by the Board of Regents was final, or requires further action by the Civil Service Commission.

RULING:

Legislature has established specific exceptions to the exclusive authority of the Civil Service Commissioner, by lodging in various entities, the power over their employees. One instance is the UP Charter, Section 6(e), which vested in the Board of Regents, the power to appoint, to fix employee compensation and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing. The existence of these exceptions to the general jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commissioner is also confirmed by the Civil Service Law of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260).

Pursuant to the authority granted to the President of the Philippines by R.A. No. 51, PGH was transferred from the Office of the President to the University of the Philippines by virtue of E.O. No. 94. The act of the Chief Executive in transferring the Philippine General Hospital from the Office of the President to the University of the Philippines clearly evinced the intention to place the Hospital employees under the administrative power of the University in matters of their discipline, suspension or removal, on a par with the other employees of the University. Had the intent been otherwise, the 1947 Executive Order No. 94 would have excepted or reserved the disciplinary power of the Commissioner of the Civil Service over the transferred employees.

Ultimately, which is important is that the provisions of Article XII, Section 4, of the Constitution that "no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law," as well as the due process clause of the Bill of Rights, should be fully observed and implemented; and the record is clear that in the case of herein respondents, no deficiency exists on this score. Pursuant to the express precept in the University charter [in its Section 6 (e)], the herein respondents were investigated by a committee of the University and the committee recommended their dismissal after mature deliberation. Before the proceedings were closed, these respondents manifested that they had no complaints regarding the procedure adopted, and were satisfied with the way the investigation was conducted; and the Court of Appeals also explicitly stated in its decision that it did not find any violation of the substantive rights of the respondents.

Whether the final decision should be made by the Civil Service Commissioner, and on appeal by the Civil Service Board of Appeals, or by the President of the University and its Board of Regents, does not in any way impair any of the substantial rights of the respondents. However, the autonomy necessary to the fulfillment of the educational and academic mission of the University demands that the administrative decision of its authorities be made final as to its employees, there being no statutory or administrative provision to the contrary. Thus, the President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines possess full and final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil service employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals.

The writ of certiorari applied for is granted, and the decisions under appeal are reversed and set aside.