respondent is exonerated of said charges, as in this case, there is no occasion on
[96] Magpale v. CSC appeal.
G.R. No. 97381 | November 5, 1992 | Quasi-judicial power | Sha
Petitioner: BENIGNO V. MAGPALE, JR.
Respondents: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and ROGELIO A. DAYAN, in his
capacity as the General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority
Recit-Ready Facts:
Magpale, a government employee of Philippine Ports Authority, was found by the DOTC
guilty of gross negligence for failure to account for units of equipment, failure to liquidate
cash advances, and for frequent and unauthorized absences. Accordingly, he was
dismissed from the service. Magpale then filed a MR but was denied by the DOTC. Thus,
he appealed before the Merit System and Protection Board who then reversed the
decision of DOTC ordering the reinstatement of Magpale. Dayan appealed such decision
before the CSC. CSC found Magpale guilty of neglect of duty. Hence, this petition.
The issue is WON the laws did not authorize an appeal by the government from an
adverse decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (YES, appeal was not
proper)
The SC held that the decision of the MSPB did not involve dismissal or separation
from office, rather, the decision exonerated Magpale and ordered him reinstated
to his former position. Thus, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal
to the CSC.
Citing Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, the Court, in said case held:
Sec. 37 of P.D. 807 (Philippines Civil Service Law) shows that said law does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from
administrative charges.
The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
involving the imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty day's salary, demotion in rank or salary
or transfer, removal or dismissal from office…
Said provisions must be read together with Section 39 of the same law which
contemplates: “Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely
affected by the decision . . .”
The phrase "party adversely affective by the decision" refers to the government
employees against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of
disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office.
By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a case
where the respondent is found guilty of the charges filed against him. But the
While it is true, that under Sec. 12 (par. 11), Ch. 3, Book 4 of the Admin Code, the
CSC does have the power to hear and decide administrative cases, the exercise of
the power is qualified by and should be read together with Section 49 which
prescribes the following requisites for the exercise of the power of appeal:
(a) the decision must be appealable;
(b) the appeal must be made by the party adversely affected by the decision;
(c) the appeal must be made within fifteen days from receipt of the decision,
unless a petition for the reconsideration is seasonably filed; and
(d) the notice of appeal must be filed with the disciplining office, which shall
forward the records of the case, together with the notice of appeal to the
appellate authority within fifteen days from filing of the notice of appeal, with its
comments, if any.
Doctrine: Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions
acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide the
case.
Application to the case: (disclaimer: in my own understanding only)
The laws only allow the appeal by the party adversely affective by the decision when the
decision involves imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days,
or fine in an amount exceeding thirty day's salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer,
removal or dismissal from office. In the case at bar, the MSPB actually exonerated
Magpale. Hence, the case cannot fall under the exemption. Also, the law contemplates
that the appeal should be brought by the party adversely affective by the decision
(government employees against whom the administrative case if filed). However, in this
case, it was brought by the Dayan in his capacity as General Manager of PPA.
FACTS:
1. Magpale was an employee in the Presidential Assistance on Community
Development. 15 years later, he transferred to the Philippine Ports Authority
(PPA) as Arrastre Superintendent. He was promoted to the position of Port
Manager of the Port Management Unit (PMU), General Santos City. Then he
was reassigned to PPA-PMU Tacloban City
2. Subsequently, Magpale was ordered to immediately report to the Assistant
General Manager (AGM) for Operation, PPA, Manila.
3. In an Internal Control Department Report the PMU-Tacloban Inventory
Committee and the Commission on Audit (COA) stated that Magpale failed to
account for equipment of PPA value at P65,542.25 and to liquidate cash
 advances amounting to P130,069.61. He was found also to have incurred Hear and decide on appeal Sec. 12. Powers and Functions. —
unauthorized absences from May 25, 1984 to July 23, 1984. administrative cases involving officials The Commission shall have the
4. A formal charge for Dishonesty, Pursuit of Private Business without and employees of the Civil Service. Its following powers and functions:
permission as required by Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Frequent and decision shall be final except those
Unauthorized Absences and Neglect of Duty was filed against him. involving dismissal or separation from (11) Hear and decide administrative
a. he was ordered preventively suspended and has been out of service the service which may be appealed to case instituted by or bought directly or
since then. the Commission. on appeal, including contested
5. Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), appointments, and review decisions
through its Administrative Action Board, found Magpale guilty of Gross Thus, claiming that since the MSBP and actions of its offices and of the
Negligence on two counts: decision was for dismissal or separation agencies attached to it.
a. failure to account for the 44 assorted units of equipment, among from the service, the said MSBP
them a Sony Betamax and a TV Camera, and decision should be deemed final,
b. failure to render the required liquidation of his cash advances immediately executory and
amounting to P44,877.00 for a period of four years. unappealable.
c. Petitioner was also found guilty of frequent and unauthorized Dayan, even in his capacity as General The case of Paredes vs. CSC is not
absences. Manager of the PPA, did not have the legal applicable. Dayan appealed the MSPB
d. Accordingly, he was dismissed from the service with the personality not the right to appeal the decision not in his personal capacity nor in
corresponding accessory penalties. decision of the MSBP. (Citing the case of pursuit in his private interest, but as head of
6. Magpale filed a MR but such was denied by the DOTC. Thus, he appealed to Paredes vs. CSC) PPA, being the general manager thereof.
the Merit System and Protection Board (MSPB) of respondent Civil Service The appeal should not have been given due The appeal was filed with the proper
Commission (CSC). course by the respondent CSC because the disciplining office because the decision
a. MSPB reversed the Decision of the DOTC. It ordered that Magpale appeal was not filed with the proper appealed from was that of the MSPB, one of
disciplining. It should be the DOTC, not with the offices in respondent CSC. Thus,
be reinstated in the service the CSC Field Office at the PPA. respondent CSC was justified in giving due
7. Dayan (respondent and General Manager of PPA) filed an appeal with the course to PPA's notice of appeal filed with its
Civil Service Field Office-PPA, and the latter indorsed the appeal to CSC. (CSC) Field Office at the PPA.
8. Magpale filed with the MSPB a Motion for Implementation of the MSPB
CSC Resolution 90-962 was rendered with For his failure to account for the property
decision but was opposed by the General Manager of PPA.
grave abuse of discretion because petitioner under his charge and to liquidate his cash
9. Magpale filed with CSC his comment to the appeal of the PPA. cannot be suspended for alleged failure to advances, petitioner is guilty of Gross
10. MSPB ruled in favor of Magpale on the ground that no motion for account for pieces of equipment and cash Neglect of Duty and should have been
reconsideration has ever been filed hence said decision has long become final advances since this is not the neglect of duty dismissed from the service if no mitigating
and executory. contemplated by Section 36 of PD No. 807 circumstances were considered in his favor.
11. CSC rendered its assailed Resolution No. 90-962 or Sec, 46 of chapter in the Civil Service in
a. Magpale guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty on two (2) counts for the EO 292. At most, petitioner can be held
forty-four (44) equipments under his charge and to render an liable for the money value of the equipment
and advances as mandated by Sec. 105 of
accounting for cash advances amounting to P44,877.90.
PD No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of
b. Cconsidering 2 mitigating circumstances of length of service and first the Philippines)
offense in favor of Magpale, the commission imposed a penalty of 1
year suspension. As he has been out of the service since 1984, the
penalty is deemed served and he should now be reinstated to his ISSUES:
former position.
12. Hence, the present recourse. WON the laws did not authorize an appeal by the government from an adverse
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (YES, appeal was not proper)
*Note: only the first row is important. I included the others just in case it is asked
RATIO:
MAGPALE’S contentions CSC’s contentions
Para. 2(a). Sec.16, Ch. 3 of the Admin. Provision relied upon by petitioner is The decision of the MSPB did not involve dismissal or separation from office,
Code provides: modified by sec. 12, Para. 11, Book V, rather, the decision exonerated Magpale and ordered him reinstated to his former
of the Admin Code position. Thus, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC.
The MSPB shall have the ff functions:
Citing Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, the Court, in said case held:
 It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Sec. 37 of P.D. 807 (Philippines Civil Service Law) shows that said law does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from
administrative charges.
(a) the decision must be appealable;
(b) the appeal must be made by the party adversely affected by the decision;
(c) the appeal must be made within fifteen days from receipt of the decision,
unless a petition for the reconsideration is seasonably filed; and

The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
involving the imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty day's salary, demotion in rank or
salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office…
Said provisions must be read together with Section 39 of the same law which
contemplates: “Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely
affected by the decision . . .”
(d) the notice of appeal must be filed with the disciplining office, which shall
forward the records of the case, together with the notice of appeal to the
appellate authority within fifteen days from filing of the notice of appeal, with its
comments, if any.
Under Section 47 of the same Code, the CSC shall decide on appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of:

The phrase "party adversely affective by the decision" refers to the government (a) a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or
employees against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of
disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or (b) fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary; or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office.
(c) demotion in rank or salary or transfer; or
By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a
case where the respondent is found guilty of the charges filed against him.
(d) removal or dismissal from office.
But the respondent is exonerated of said charges, as in this case, there is no
occasion on appeal.
The decision of the MSPB did not involve dismissal or separation from office,
rather, the decision exonerated Magpale and ordered him reinstated to his former
The above ruling is a reiteration of the earlier pronouncement in Paredes vs. Civil
position. Consequently, in the light of our pronouncements in the aforecited
Service Commission, cited by petitioner, where We said:
cases of Mendez v. Civil Service Commission and Paredes vs. Civil Service
Commission, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC.
…appeal to the Civil Service Commission in an administrative case is extended
to the party adversely affected by the decision, that is, the person or the
Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions acts
respondent employee who has been meted out the penalty of suspension for
without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide the
more than thirty days; or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary demotion
case.
in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. The decision of the
disciplining authority is even final and not appealable to the Civil Service
Commission in cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than WHEREFORE, the decision of the Civil Service Commission is hereby ANNULLED and
thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary. SET ASIDE and the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dated February 5,
1990 is hereby REINSTATED.
While it is true, as contended by respondent Civil Service Commission, that under Sec.
12 (par. 11), Ch. 3, Subtitle A, Book V of the Admin Code, the CSC does have the
power to —

Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on

appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its
offices and of the agencies attached to it. . . .

the exercise of the power is qualified by and should be read together with the
other sections of the same sub-title, particularly Section 49 which prescribes the
following requisites for the exercise of the power of appeal, to wit: