Torres v. de Leon - Case Digest

Mary Lou Geturbos Torres v. Corazon Alma C. De Leon, G.R. No. 199440, January 1, !01", T#$r% D$v$s$on, &eralta. Civil Service Commission’s Appellate Jurisdiction Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Internal Auditing Ofce conducted an audit o the unds and accounts o the PNRC General Santos City chapter. ased on the audit report! "orre "orres s incurred a technical shortage in the a#ount o $.% &illion. 'e eon! as secretary general general o PNRC! charged charged "orre "orres s ith Grace Grace &iscon &isconduc duct. t. 'e eon eon iss issued ued a #e#or #e#orandu andu# # i#pos i#posing ing penalt penalties ies o  one*#o one*#onth nth sus suspen pensio sion n (+uly (+uly ,*%,) ,*%,) and trans transer er to nation national al head-u head-uart arters ers against "orres. "he latter led a notice o appeal addressed to the oard o  Go/er o/erno norrs o the the PNRC NRC and and ur urnish nishe ed copy copy to the the CSC. CSC. "he "he appe appeal al #e#orandu# as addressed to the CSC and copies ere sent to the PNRC. 'e eon eon denied denied the appeal appeal.. 0oe/e 0oe/er! r! the CSC pro#u pro#ulga lgated ted a resol resoluti ution on i#posi i#posing ng a penalt penalty y o dis dis#i #issal ssal ro# ro# ser/ic ser/ice e agains againstt "orre orres. s. "he latter latter -ue -uestio stione ned d the 1uri urisd sdiiction tion o the the CSC CSC 2ec 2ecause ause the the PNRC NRC is not not a go/ern#ent*oned go/ern#ent*oned and controlled corporation. 'o the Ci/il Ser/ice Co##ission ha/e appellate 1urisdiction o/er the case3  4es.  4es. "he PNRC! PNRC! although not a GOCC! is sui generis in character. character. "he sui generi generis s charac character ter o PNRC PNRC re-ui re-uire res s the court court to approac approach h contr contro/e o/ersi rsies es in/ol/ing the PNRC on a case*to*case 2asis. Since the issue in/ol/es in the enorce#ent o la2or las and penal statutes! PNRC can 2e treated as a GOCC. "hus! the CSC has 1urisdiction. 0a/ing 1urisdiction o/er the PNRC! the CSC had authority to #odiy the penalty and order the dis#issal o "orres ro# ro# the the ser ser/ic /ice. &or &oreo/ eo/er! er! the CSC has has appe appelllate late 1uri urisd sdiiction tion on ad#ini ad#inistr strati ati/e /e dis discip ciplin linary ary cases cases in/ol/ in/ol/ing ing the i#posi i#positio tion n o a penalt penalty y o  suspension or #ore than thirty days or ne in an a#ount e5ceeding thirty days6 salary. salary. 'id the CSC lose its appellate 1urisdiction hen "orres /oluntarily ser/ed the one*#onth suspension3  "he CSC did not lose its appellate 1urisdiction. A decision 2eco#es nal e/en 2eore the lapse o the teen*day period to appeal hen the deendant /oluntarily su2#its to the e5ecution o the sentence. In the present case! hoe/er! it cannot 2e said that she /oluntarily ser/ed her penalty in /ie o  the act that she appealed therero#. &oreo/er! an appeal shall not stop the decision ro# 2eing e5ecutory! and in case the penalty is suspension or re#o/ e#o/al al!! the the respo espond nden entt sh shal alll 2e cons consid ider ered ed as ha/i ha/ing ng 2een 2een unde underr pre/enti/e suspension during the pendency o the appeal! in the e/ent he ins the appeal. 7as the Notice o Appeal properly led at the CSC3

 4es. An e5a#ination o the Notice o Appeal shos that the sa#e as addressed to the PNRC and copy urnished the CSC. On the other hand! an e5a#ination o the Appeal &e#orandu# shos that the sa#e as addressed to the CSC and copies thereo ere sent to 2oth the PNRC and the CSC. It is thus clear that a copy o the Notice o Appeal as urnished the CSC and the Appeal &e#orandu# as led ith it. 7hile the rules re-uired that the notice o appeal including the appeal #e#orandu# shall 2e led ith the CSC! it is undenia2le that urnishing a copy o the Notice o Appeal ith the CSC and ling ith it the Appeal &e#orandu# su2stantially co#plied ith the rule. "he i#portant thing is that the Appeal &e#orandu# as clearly addressed to the CSC.