Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPALITY OF GLAN, PROVINCE

OF SARANGANI, REPRESENTED BY
MAYOR VICTOR JAMES B. YAP, SR.,
Petitioner,

- versus -

ELEONOR P. CORPUZ & THE CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL
OFFICE – XII (CSCRO-XII),
Respondent.

Case Number: ________________

RE: APPEAL ON REASSIGNMENT

x----------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW respondent, through undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Commission, most respectfully state, thus:

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1. On 13 September 2022, appellant received a copy of the subject

DECISION promulgated on 11 August 2022 by the HON. RESURRECCION P. PUEYO
of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office XII (CSCRO-XII) in the case
docketed as NDC-22-0007 entitled RE: APPEAL ON REASSIGNMENT (DETAIL),
which dispositive portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant

APPEAL on reassignment of ELEONOR P. CORPUZ is GRANTED for
being violative of the rules on reassignment. Accordingly, the
reassignment order under Office Order No. 2022-001 dated 1 July
2022 is declared NOT IN ORDER. Corpuz is restored to her original
assignment as Municipal Budget Officer at the Office of the
1 | Petition for Review
 Municipal Budget, Glan, Sarangani Province.” (emphasis ours)

2. In its cover letter, the Honorable Regional Director Venus O.

Bumanlag stated that appellant may elevate the decision to the Commission by
way of Petition for Review. It reads:

“(A)s a remedy, pursuant to Section 111 in relation to Section 71

of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RACCS), you may elevate the said decision to the Commission
Proper by way of a petition for review within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the decision.”

3. HENCE, based on the foregoing, respondent has until 27 September

2022 to file a petition for review;

NATURE OF THE PETITION

4. This is a petition for review under Rule 13 in relation to Rule 23 of

the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases of the Civil Service (2017
RRACS) on the decision of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office-XII
(CSCRO-XII) granting the appeal on reassignment (detail) of Respondent Eleonor
P. Corpuz.

THE PARTIES

5. Petitioner Municipality of Glan, represented by Mayor Victor

James B. Yap, Sr., (“Mayor Yap”) of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident
of Barangay Ilaya, Glan, Sarangani Province, is a duly constituted Local
Government Unit of Glan, Province of Sarangani. The petitioner may be served
with the summons and processes of this Honorable Commission at the Municipal
Hall of Glan, Sarangani Province;

6. Respondent Eleonor P. Corpuz, of legal age, Filipino, married and

a resident of the Municipality of Glan, Sarangani Province, is an employee of
the Local Government Unit of Glan as appointed Municipal Budget Officer.
Respondent may be served with summons and processes of this Honorable
Commission at her office at Municipal Hall of Glan, Sarangani Province;

7. Respondent CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE XII

(CSC RO-XII) is impleaded in this petition as a nominal party being the one who
promulgated the assailed decision subject of this petition for review. It may be
served with the processes of this Honorable Commission at its Regional Office
at Regional Center, Carpenter Hill, Koronadal City, South Cotabato.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

2 | Petition for Review

 8. On 01 July 2022, Mayor Victor James B. Yap, Sr. issued an Office
Order No. 2022-0011 ordering the TEMPORARY DETAIL of respondent Eleonor P.
Corpuz to the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO)
without reduction in rank, status or salary pursuant to CSC MEMORANDUM
CIRCULAR NO. 21 SERIES OF 2002 CITING CSC RESOLUTION NO. 021181 DATED
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002;

9. While detailed to the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources

Office (MENRO), respondent Corpuz retains her position and status as Municipal
Budget Officer2 with the same salary grade and that she continuously received
her Representation & Transportation Allowance (RATA)3;

10. Unknown to petitioner, respondent Corpuz wrote a letter of appeal

to respondent Civil Service Commission Regional Office XII assailing her detail
to MENRO. With that, respondent CSCRO-XII, without furnishing the copy of the
letter and its annexes, requested petitioner to comment on the said appeal on
or before July 28, 2022. The letter reads;

“This pertains to the Appeal filed by Ms. Eleonor B. Corpuz,

Municipal Budget Officer on her reassignment (Office Order No.
2022-001 dated 01 July 2022 re: Temporary detail to MENRO)
from the Municipal Budget Office to the Municipal Environment
and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) as Foreman.

In this regard, may we request for your comment on the said

appeal on or before July 28, 2022. Failure to submit on the said
date, this office will be constrained to resolve the case based on
available records.”4

11. In compliance thereto, petitioner submitted its comment 5 within

the reglementary period;

12. In a letter6 dated August 17, 2022 signed by certain Venus O.

Bumanlag, Director III, respondent CSCRO-XII informed petitioner that it
rendered a decision7 in favor of Ms. Corpuz which grants her appeal.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

A. The respondent CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE – XII

(CSCRO-XII) committed serious error when it concluded that this case is
one that is covered under Section 71, Rule 14 of the 2017 Revised Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RRACS);
1
ANNEX “A”: Copy of the Office Order No. 2022-001
2
ANNEX “B” to “B-1”: certified true copy of respondent’s Payroll for the months of July and August 2022,
respectively;
3
ANNEX “C”: certified true copy of her RATA for the month of July 2022;
4
ANNEX “D”: copy of the letter request to comment;
5
ANNEX “E”: certified true copy of the petitioner’s comment;
6
ANNEX “F”: certified true copy of the letter informing the decision of respondent CSCRO-XII;
7
ANNEX “G”: certified true copy of the assailed decision
3 | Petition for Review
 B. The respondent CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE – XII
(CSCRO-XII) committed grave abuse of discretion and serious error when
she acted on the appeal despite its patent procedural defect;

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT this instant case is cognizable under Section 71, Rule
14 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACS);

II. WHETHER OR NOT the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE –

XII (CSCRO-XII) committed grave abuse of discretion;

III. WHETHER OR NOT the decision rendered by CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

REGIONAL OFFICE – XII (CSCRO-XII) is valid and binding;

ARGUMENTS

THIS CASE IS COGNIZABLE UNDER RULE 23

(REMEDIES IN NON-DISCIPLINARY CASES)
NOT UNDER RULE 14 (REMOVAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES OR
DISABILITIES).

13. Worth to note that what respondent Corpuz is assailing is the

legality or propriety of her temporary detail to the Municipal Environment and
Natural Resources Office (MENRO) pursuant to Office Order No. 2022-001. And
in resolving the issue, the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE – XII
(CSCRO-XII) concluded that the detail is considered re-aasignment and that it is
a form of penalty. As such, it considered this case as one that is covered under
Section 71, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACS);

14. Section 71, Rule 14 reads as follows:

“Section 71. Recommendation for Removal of Administrative

Penalties or Disabilities; Requirements. – In meritorious cases
and upon recommendation of the Commission, the President may
commute or remove administrative penalties or disabilities im-
posed upon officers or employees in disciplinary cases, subject to
such terms and conditions as he/she may impose in the interest of
the service.”

15. A reasonable and logical conclusion we can arrive at, based on the
above stated provision, is that the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OF-
4 | Petition for Review
FICE – XII (CSCRO-XII) decision is patently erroneous. There can be no way that
Section 71 finds application to the case subject of this petition for review;

16. Legally and technically speaking, detail, even re-assignment, is

NOT a penalty. As defined by law, detail is “the temporary movement of an
employee from one department or agency to another which does not involve a
reduction in rank, status or salary”8;

17. Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil

Service (RRACS) provides the list or schedule of Penalties, particularly:

PENALTIES

Rule 10

SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES

Section 46. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses

with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave
or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on
the government service.

A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal

from the service:
xxxx.

B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension

of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first of-
fense and dismissal from the service for the second offense:

xxxx.

C. The grave offense of Inefficiency and Incompetence in the per-

formance of official duties is punishable by Demotion. In this
case, the guilty person shall be appointed to the next lower posi-
tion to which he/she is qualified in the plantilla of the agency. In
case there is no such next lower position available, he/she shall
suffer diminution in salary corresponding to the next lower salary
grade.

xxxx.

D. The following less grave offenses are punishable by suspension

of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension to six (6) months for
the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second of-
fense:

xxxx.

8
Section 1 of CSC Resolution No. 021181
5 | Petition for Review
 E. The less grave offense of Simple Dishonesty is punishable by
suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for
the first offense; six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense.

xxxx.

F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for

the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the
second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third of-
fense:

18. A cursory reading of the foregoing lead us to find that detail, even
re-assignment, is not a penalty. Therefore, taking cognizance of and resolving
this instant case within the purview of Section 71, Rule 14 of the 2017 Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RRACS) is patently
erroneous;

19. It is our humble position, therefore, that the appropriate rule

governing this instant case is Section 110, Rule 23 (2017 RRACS). It reads:

“Section 110. Appeal from Decisions on Other Personnel Ac-

tions. – Other personnel actions, such as, but not limited to, sep-
aration from the service due to unsatisfactory conduct or want of
capacity during probationary period, dropping from the rolls due
to Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), physical and mental
unfitness, and unsatisfactory poor performance, protest, action
on appointments, reassignment, transfer, reappointment, detail,
secondment, demotion, or termination of services, may be
brought to the CSCRO, by way of an appeal.” (emphasis ours)

20. With the afore-quoted provision, it is, therefore, evident that the
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE – XII (CSCRO-XII) misapplied the
rules in taking cognizance of this case. And such error is fatal to the validity of
the assailed decision.

PETITIONER IS DENIED OF ITS RIGHT TO

DUE PROCESS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE
APPEAL OF RESPONDENT ELEONOR P.
CORPUS HAS NOT BEEN PERFECTED.

21. Petitioner firmly believes that it has not been accorded due
process. From the start, it was not informed of the respondent’s particular
accusations. No records to show that it has been duly furnished with a copy of
the complaint/appeal with its annexes. And that omission is not merely a minor
procedural defect since it denied petitioner of its right to due process of law.

22. It is only upon the receipt by Mayor Yap of the letter from the
6 | Petition for Review
respondent Civil Service Commission Regional Office XII (CSCRO-XII) that
petitioner learned the existence of the letter of appeal. Respondent Corpuz is
situated just at a proximate distance from the Municipal Hall of Glan,
Sarangani Province. She could have easily had her letter of appeal personally
served to petitioner. And if she felt uncomfortable to personally serve the
same, she could have sent it through registered mail. But none of the two
modes were utilized.

23. Likewise, the respondent CSCRO-XII only sent a letter to petitioner

requesting the latter to comment, without attaching the copy the letter of
appeal and its annexes.

24. In addition, petitioner was surprised upon reading the assailed

decision which stated that respondent Corpuz made some amendments to her
appeal. Again, those amendments were not duly furnished to petitioner to give
it an opportunity to answer point by point. Unfortunately, respondent Corpuz
and CSCRO-XII seem to not mind its importance and legal implication.

25. Section 114, Rule 23 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RRACS) provides clear guidelines for the
perfection of an appeal in non-disciplinary cases. It reads:

“Section 114. Perfection of an Appeal. – To perfect an appeal,

the appellant shall submit three (3) copies of the following docu-
ments:

a. Appeal memorandum containing the grounds relied upon for

the appeal, together with the certified true copy of the decision,
resolution or order appealed from, and certified copies of the
documents or evidence. The appeal memorandum shall be filed
with the appellate authority, COPY FURNISHED THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY. The latter shall submit the records of the case,
which shall be systematically and chronologically arranged, paged
and securely bound to prevent loss, with its comment, within fif-
teen (15) days from receipt, to the appellate authority.

b. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal memorandum to the

appointing authority;

c. Proof of payment of the appeal fee; and

d. A statement or certificate of non-forum shopping.”(emphasis

ours)

26. None of the above stated requirements were complied with by

respondent Corpuz. Hence, it only means that her appeal is not perfected.

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL

OFFICE – XII (CSCRO-XII) GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT TOOK
7 | Petition for Review
COGNIZANCE OF THE APPEAL DESPITE ITS
APPARENT IMPERFECTION.

27. The appellate jurisdiction of Honorable Director Pueyo is conferred

in Section 8 (B)(2) of the 2017 RRACS. It says very clearly:

Section 8. Cases Cognizable by Regional Offices. – Except as

otherwise directed by the Commission, the Civil Service Commis-
sion Regional Offices shall take cognizance of the following cases:

xxxx.

B. Non-Disciplinary

xxxx.

2. Decisions of heads of agencies, except those of the department

secretaries and bureau heads within their geographical boundaries
relative to protests and other personnel actions and other non-
disciplinary actions brought before it on appeal; and (emphasis
ours)

28. While it is true that respondent CSCRO-XII has appellate

jurisdiction over the subject matter (detail order) of this case, but the exercise
thereof is excessive. Therefore, there is patently a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

29. In the case of Jarabelo vs. Household Goods Patrons, Inc. 9, the
Supreme Court ruled: “By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The
abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation
of law”.

30. Charged with expertise with respect to rules on Civil Service cases,
respondent CSCRO-XII should be able to apply at least the appropriate rule by
which the assailed decision is based. The rules in the 2017 RRACS are very clear
and that it leaves no room for interpretation. It clearly provides the rules as
well as the documents to be submitted in order to perfect an appeal.

31. The 2nd paragraph of Section 114, Rule 23 of the 2017 RRACS is
instructive. It particularly provides the action to be taken by the respondent
CSCRO-XII in order to address the deficiency. It says:

9
G.R. No. 223163, December 02, 2020
8 | Petition for Review
 “When an appellant fails to comply with any of the above require-
ments within the reglementary period, the Commission SHALL di-
rect compliance within a period of ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, with a warning that failure to comply shall be construed as
failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause the dismissal of the
appeal with prejudice to its refiling.” (emphasis supplied)

32. The respondent CSCRO-XII regarded the letter of respondent

Corpuz as an “appeal”, as such; the former has the positive duty to check said
appeal in terms of its form and substantial. More so, the respondent CSCRO-XII
is charged with positive duty to ensure that the appeal conforms to the rule on
perfection of an appeal before such appeal should be acted upon.

33. But what happened in this case is the exact opposite. The
respondent CSCRO-XII gravely abused its discretion by taking cognizance of the
appeal despite the fact that the same is lacking in form and substance as well
as the fact that the appeal is not perfected. And what is more erroneous is that
it rendered a decision based on a wrong remedy (Rule 14, Section 71).

THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT

CSCRO-XII HAS NO LEGAL AND BINDING
EFFECT.

34. Settled in jurisprudence is the rule which says decisions rendered

by a quasi-judicial body or tribunal without or in excess of its jurisdiction is
void, thus, no legal effect.

35. In the case of Rene Imperial & NIDSLAND vs. Armes10, the
Supreme Court reiterated the rule about void judgment. It stated:

“When grave abuse of discretion taints a judgment, it becomes

wholly void. It may be challenged by direct action which has for
its object the declaration of the nullity of the judgment. It may
also be set aside through a collateral attack.”

36. Furthermore, the court explained the effect of a void judgement in

the case of Go vs. Echavez, where it says:

“A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect. It does

not divest rights and no rights can be obtained under it; all
proceedings founded upon a void judgment are equally
worthless.”

DETAIL OF EMPLOYEE IS ALLOWED BY

LAW. THE DETAIL OF RESPONDENT
ELEONOR P. CORPUS CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AS REASSIGNMENT.
10
G.R. No. 178842, January 30, 2017
9 | Petition for Review
 37. The detail of respondent Eleonor P. Corpus is in accordance with
the Civil Service Rules on Detail, particularly, CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR
NO. 21 SERIES OF 2002 CITING CSC RESOLUTION NO. 021181 DATED
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002.

38. It must be noted that respondent Corpuz has not been demoted in
rank as evidenced by the Payroll attached herein as Annexes. As can be
gleaned and indicated therefrom, Eleonor P. Corpuz is still the Municipal Legal
Officer who received a pay for salary grade 24 plus the Representation and
Travelling Allowance (RATA).

39. Section 1 of CSC Resolution No. 021181 defined the term “detail”
in this wise:

“Section 1. Detail – is the temporary movement of an employee

from one department or agency to another which does not
involve a reduction in rank, status or salary.

A detail will not require the issuance of an appointment but only

an office order which should be issued by the appointing
authority. The employee detailed receives his/her salary from
his/her mother unit/agency.”

PRAYER:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Body that the decision rendered by the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
REGIONAL OFFICE – XII (CSCRO-XII) granting the appeal of respondent Eleonor
P. Corpuz be declared null and void.

All other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Municipality of Glan, Province of Sarangani . 27 September 2022.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

CLEMENTE A. PANGANDUYON
Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll No. 72479/14June2019/MM
MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPT.
Per OCA Circular 67-2008
IBP No. 183475/03Jan2022
PTR No. 0032295/03Jan2022

10 | Petition for Review

 4th Floor, Municipal Hall,
Glan, Sarangani Province
Cell. No. 09153560224
[email protected]

REQUEST

The Receiving Clerk

Office for Legal Affairs
Civil Service Commission
Quezon City

Sir/Madam:

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Petition for Review immediately

upon receipt hereof for the kind consideration of the Honorable Commission 
sans further oral arguments. 

CLEMENTE A. PANGANDUYON

Copy furnished:

ELEONOR P. CORPUZ
Respondent
Styco, Glan, Sarangani Province

Registry Receipt No.: _______________

Date: ____________________________

Civil Service Commission Regional Office-XII

Regional Center, Carpenter Hill
Koronadal, South Cotabato

Registry Receipt No.: _______________

Date: ____________________________

EXPLANATION

(in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 13 of

the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Petition for Review is being served on the via registered
mail, personal service not being practicable, due to distance and the lack of
personnel to effect personal service.

11 | Petition for Review

                                                                                 
                                                             CLEMENTE A. PANGANDUYON

12 | Petition for Review