Berces vs. Civil Service Commission

A successor public officer may validly withdraw a motion for reconsideration filed by a predecessor in an administrative case, and where such withdrawal means no motion was pending within the reglementary period, the original decision attains finality and any subsequent resolution vacating it is null and void. Furthermore, while certiorari under Rule 65 is generally not a substitute for a lost appeal, the Court may relax this rule when the broader interest of justice so requires and when the assailed resolution is a patent nullity.

Petitioner Engr. Juan B. Berces served as City Planning and Development Officer and Head of the City Planning and Development Office of the Local Government Unit of Tabaco City. The LGU had in place Memorandum Order No. 01 (dated January 6, 2009), which prohibited smoking, drinking of liquor, and peddling of goods inside City Hall, and Memorandum Order No. 02 (dated January 5, 2009), which pertained to a power cost-cutting measure. The administrative liability of civil service employees is governed by the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and its successor, the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, under which final orders or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43.

Petitioner Engr. Juan B. Berces was the City Planning and Development Officer and Head of the City Planning and Development Office of the Local Government Unit of Tabaco City. On August 5, 2011, at around 8:30 p.m., petitioner, along with two other employees of LGU-Tabaco City, was caught by Police Superintendent Joel T. Tada, Chief of Police of Tabaco City, having a drinking session inside the City Planning and Development Office.

The incident reached Tabaco City Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro. In a letter dated August 8, 2011, petitioner apologized to the Mayor, explaining that he was celebrating his 15th anniversary as a public officer. In his Counter-Affidavit, petitioner admitted committing a lapse of judgment but stressed he had no intention of violating the LGU's directives, attributing his mistake to the fragility of human emotions and being overwhelmed by the occasion. He expressed that this solitary error should not dampen his 15 years of honest and unquestioned service in the government. Nevertheless, on August 31, 2011, Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a complaint against petitioner and his two companions for violation of LGU-Tabaco City's Memorandum Order No. 01 dated January 6, 2009 and M.O. No. 02 dated January 5, 2009.

On September 9, 2011, Mayor Lagman-Luistro issued a Formal Charge accusing petitioner of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. In his Position Paper, petitioner denied that his acts were tantamount to the offenses charged and bewailed the absence of any preliminary investigation on the part of the administrative investigation committee of LGU-Tabaco City. On February 13, 2012, Mayor Lagman-Luistro issued an Order dismissing petitioner from the service, finding him culpable of Grave Misconduct punishable under Section 52(A)(3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission. On February 14, 2013, the CSC issued Decision No. 130159, which downgraded petitioner's liability to Simple Misconduct, ruling that his transgression had no direct relation to the performance of his duties and that there was no indication his acts were inspired by a corrupt or wrongful motive. The CSC modified the penalty to six months suspension and ordered reinstatement without backwages. Dissatisfied, Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC, praying for reinstatement of the original penalty of dismissal. Following the May 2013 midterm elections, Mayor Lagman-Luistro was replaced by Mayor Maria Josefa V. Demetriou. On July 1, 2013, Mayor Demetriou sent a letter to CSC Chairperson Francisco T. Duque III informing him that she was withdrawing the Motion for Reconsideration filed by her predecessor, and on July 3, 2013, she formally filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration, intimating her intention to reinstate petitioner to his former position. Notwithstanding the withdrawal, on July 15, 2013, the CSC rendered Resolution No. 1301575 granting Mayor Lagman-Luistro's Motion for Reconsideration, vacating Decision No. 130159, and affirming the Order of dismissal with all accessory penalties.

• Wrong Penalty: Petitioner denied that his acts constituted Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, maintaining that his transgression had no direct relation to the performance of his official duties and was not inspired by any corrupt or wrongful motive.
• Denial of Due Process: Petitioner bewailed the absence of any preliminary investigation on the part of the administrative investigation committee of LGU-Tabaco City.
• Procedural Error by CSC: Petitioner asserted that CSC Resolution No. 1301575 was null and void, as Mayor Demetriou had validly withdrawn the Motion for Reconsideration filed by her predecessor, causing CSC Decision No. 130159 to attain finality.

• Wrong Remedy and Procedural Lapses: The Office of the Solicitor General faulted petitioner for filing the wrong remedy with the CA (Rule 65 instead of Rule 43) and for his failure to file a motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 1301575 before filing the Rule 65 petition. Nevertheless, the OSG acknowledged that based on the facts and the law, petitioner should only be held liable for simple misconduct, and in the greater interest of justice, alternatively prayed that CSC Decision No. 130159 be reinstated.
• Correct Penalty Imposed: Mayor Lagman-Luistro maintained her stance that the correct penalty of dismissal was imposed against petitioner and argued that she remained the real party in interest despite ceasing to be mayor.

• Propriety of CA Dismissal: Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's Rule 65 petition outright on the ground that it was the wrong mode of remedy.
• Validity of Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether Mayor Demetriou validly withdrew the Motion for Reconsideration filed by her predecessor, Mayor Lagman-Luistro.
• Finality of CSC Decision No. 130159: Whether CSC Decision No. 130159 attained finality as a result of the withdrawal, rendering CSC Resolution No. 1301575 null and void.
• Classification of Offense: Whether petitioner was correctly found guilty of grave misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal.

• Propriety of CA Dismissal: Yes, the CA erred. While Rule 65 was the wrong remedy, the CA should have relaxed the procedural rules because petitioner's 15-year tenure was at stake and CSC Resolution No. 1301575 was null and void, falling under recognized exceptions to the rule that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.
• Validity of Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration: Yes, the withdrawal was valid. Under Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, a successor public officer enjoys the prerogative of continuing or withdrawing from any action instituted by a predecessor.
• Finality of CSC Decision No. 130159: Yes, CSC Decision No. 130159 attained finality. Because the Motion for Reconsideration was validly withdrawn, no such motion was pending within the reglementary period; CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which vacated the final decision, is null and void for violating the doctrine of immutability of judgment.
• Classification of Offense: No, petitioner was not correctly found guilty of grave misconduct. His act had no direct relation to the performance of his official duties and involved no corruption or willful intent to violate the law. However, the finding of Simple Misconduct stands by virtue of the finality of CSC Decision No. 130159, even though the Court noted the act was more properly classifiable as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

• Propriety of CA Dismissal: Final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43, and a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy. Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive remedies. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially where the loss was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy. Nevertheless, the Court has recognized exceptions: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. In this case, because petitioner's 15-year tenure in government service was at stake and CSC Resolution No. 1301575 was null and void, the CA should have decided the case on the merits rather than relying on technicalities.

• Validity of Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration: Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court provides that when a public officer who is a party in an action in his official capacity ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor. The successor enjoys the prerogative of continuing or withdrawing from any action instituted by the predecessor. In Miranda vs. Carreon, the Court upheld a successor mayor's withdrawal of a motion for reconsideration filed by her predecessor. Applying the same principle, Mayor Demetriou acted well within her authority when she withdrew Mayor Lagman-Luistro's Motion for Reconsideration upon assuming office, even intimating her intention to reinstate petitioner. It was grave error for the CSC to consider the motion after it had been withdrawn by the successor mayor, and Mayor Lagman-Luistro's claim that she remained the real party in interest had no basis.

• Finality of CSC Decision No. 130159: A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration is filed. A final judgment becomes immutable and unalterable, precluding modification even if meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mayor Demetriou's withdrawal meant no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period, CSC Decision No. 130159 — which downgraded the offense to Simple Misconduct — had already attained finality. CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which vacated that final decision, was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and is null and void.

• Classification of Offense: Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and must relate to or be connected with the performance of official functions and duties. Grave misconduct requires additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence. The CSC's Resolution No. 1100039, classifying consumption of alcoholic drinks during office hours as Simple Misconduct, was inapplicable because petitioner drank outside office hours, albeit inside his office. More fundamentally, petitioner's act cannot be considered misconduct — whether simple or grave — because the act was not directly related to or connected with the performance of his official duties amounting to maladministration or willful neglect. The act was more properly classifiable as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, which need not be connected with official functions but encompasses any conduct that tarnishes the image and integrity of a public office. Nevertheless, the finding of Simple Misconduct stands by virtue of the doctrine of immutability and finality of judgments, since CSC Decision No. 130159 had already attained finality.

• Substitution of Public Officers (Rule 3, Section 17) — When a public officer who is a party in an action in his official capacity ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against the successor, if there is a substantial need and the successor adopts or continues the action. The successor enjoys the prerogative of continuing or withdrawing from any action instituted by the predecessor. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Mayor Demetriou validly withdrew the Motion for Reconsideration filed by her predecessor, Mayor Lagman-Luistro, thereby divesting the CSC of any basis to act on the withdrawn motion.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, precluding modification even if meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that CSC Decision No. 130159, having attained finality upon the valid withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration, could no longer be vacated by CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which was therefore null and void.

• Certiorari Not a Substitute for a Lost Appeal (with Exceptions) — The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal; remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. However, the Court may relax this rule when: (a) public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) the writs issued are null and void; or (d) the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. The Court applied exception (c) because CSC Resolution No. 1301575 was a patent nullity, and exception (b) because petitioner's 15-year government tenure was at stake.

• Misconduct (Grave vs. Simple) — Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and must relate to or be connected with the performance of official functions and duties. Grave misconduct requires additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules, proven by substantial evidence. Corruption consists in the act of an official who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station to procure some benefit for himself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others. A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the additional elements qualifying it as grave are absent. The Court found that petitioner's act of drinking inside his office after hours had no direct relation to the performance of his official duties and involved no corruption or willful intent, and thus did not constitute misconduct at all — though the finding of Simple Misconduct stood due to the finality of CSC Decision No. 130159.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — An administrative offense which need not be connected with or related to a person's official functions, but is so inclusive as to put within its ambit any conduct of a public officer that tarnishes the image and integrity of his or her public office. The Court noted that petitioner's act was more properly classifiable under this offense than under misconduct.

• "When a public officer ceases to hold his or her office, the successor to such office enjoys the prerogative of continuing or withdrawing from any action that may have been instituted by his or her predecessor." — This passage articulates the rule on substitution of public officers under Rule 3, Section 17, forming the basis for the Court's holding that Mayor Demetriou validly withdrew the Motion for Reconsideration.

• "Mayor Lagman-Luistro's Motion for Reconsideration was nothing but mere scraps of paper." — This statement underscores the legal effect of the valid withdrawal: the motion was functus officio, and the CSC acted without jurisdiction in acting upon it.

• "CSC Resolution No. 1301575, vacating CSC Decision No. 130159, runs afoul of the doctrine of immutability of judgment. It is null and void as it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion." — This is the ratio decidendi on the nullity of the CSC resolution, directly linking the withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration to the finality of the original decision and the void character of the subsequent resolution.

• "[I]t is discerned that petitioner's act cannot be considered as amounting to misconduct, whether simple or gross, since the act committed must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office, which is not the case here." — This passage defines the essential element of connection to official duties required for misconduct, and explains why petitioner's after-hours drinking did not qualify — though the finding of Simple Misconduct was sustained solely due to the finality of CSC Decision No. 130159.

• Miranda vs. Carreon, 449 Phil. 285 (2003) — Controlling precedent on the right of a successor public officer to withdraw a motion for reconsideration filed by a predecessor. The Court followed this case in holding that Mayor Demetriou validly withdrew Mayor Lagman-Luistro's Motion for Reconsideration.

• Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 479 Phil. 768 (2004) — Cited for the detailed discussion of the distinctions between appeal and certiorari as to purpose, manner of filing, subject matter, period of filing, and need for a motion for reconsideration.

• Butuan Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 808 Phil. 443 (2017) — Cited for the doctrine that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal and that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive.

• Tanenglian vs. Lorenzo, 573 Phil. 472 (2008) — Cited for the recognized exceptions to the rule that certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy: (a) public welfare and advancement of public policy; (b) broader interest of justice; (c) writs issued are null and void; (d) oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

• Department of Education vs. Cuanan, 594 Phil. 451 (2008) — Cited as an example where the Court applied the exception for patent nullity, holding that immediate recourse to certiorari was warranted where the CSC's acts were patently illegal.

• Mocorro, Jr. vs. Ramirez, 582 Phil. 357 (2008) — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, establishing that a final decision becomes immutable and unalterable and that any act violating this principle must be struck down.

• Rule 3, Section 17, Rules of Court — Governs substitution when a public officer who is a party in an action in his official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office. The Court applied this provision to hold that Mayor Demetriou, as successor, had the prerogative to withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration filed by her predecessor.

• Rule 43, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides that final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the CA through a petition for review. The Court noted this as the correct remedy that petitioner should have availed of, while still relaxing the rule in the interest of justice.

• Rule 13, Section 70, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) — Echoes the directive that a party may elevate a CSC decision to the CA by way of a petition for review under Rule 43.

• Section 52(A)(3), Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) — The provision under which the Mayor's Order found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct punishable by dismissal from the service.

• CSC Resolution No. 1100039 (Jan. 10, 2011), Section 5 — Classifies the act of consuming intoxicating liquor and alcoholic beverages during office hours as Simple Misconduct (1st offense: suspension of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months; 2nd offense: dismissal). The Court found this resolution inapplicable because petitioner drank outside office hours.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.