Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petition For Review
Petition For Review
- versus -
x----------------------x
THE PARTIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
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);
ARGUMENTS
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;
PENALTIES
Rule 10
SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES
xxxx.
xxxx.
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.
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;
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.
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.
xxxx.
B. Non-Disciplinary
xxxx.
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)
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).
35. In the case of Rene Imperial & NIDSLAND vs. Armes10, the
Supreme Court reiterated the rule about void judgment. It stated:
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:
PRAYER:
All other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
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
REQUEST
Sir/Madam:
CLEMENTE A. PANGANDUYON
Copy furnished:
ELEONOR P. CORPUZ
Respondent
Styco, Glan, Sarangani Province
EXPLANATION
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.