University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

The President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines possess full and final authority to discipline, suspend, and remove civil service employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals, where due process by investigation and hearing for cause under the UP Charter is observed.

Camilo Peña and Domingo Cajipe were classified civil service employees serving in the Philippine General Hospital, an institution transferred in 1947 from the Office of the President to the University of the Philippines together with its personnel, powers, functions, and appropriations. The University operated under its Charter, Act No. 1870 as amended, whose Section 6(e) empowered its Board of Regents to appoint and to remove employees for cause after investigation and hearing. The general Civil Service laws, culminating in Republic Act No. 2260, otherwise conferred upon the Commissioner of Civil Service final authority over removal, separation, and suspension, except as otherwise provided by law.

Camilo V. Peña served as Assistant Cashier and Special Disbursing Officer and Domingo Cajipe as Collection Officer of the Philippine General Hospital, which had been transferred to the University of the Philippines. Together with seven others, they were administratively charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty and infidelity in the custody of public documents. A UP-PGH Investigating Committee conducted fifty-nine hearings, excluding executive sessions, and thereafter submitted its report to the University authorities.

On the basis of that report, the UP Board of Regents adopted a resolution approving the findings and fixing the penalties, which as to Peña and Cajipe was dismissal from service. To prevent execution of the penalty, Peña and Cajipe filed a petition for injunction with the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to restrain the UP President from dismissing them, to have themselves declared governed by Republic Act No. 2260 rather than the UP Charter on removal and separation, and to nullify the Investigating Committee's findings.

The trial court restrained the dismissal and, after trial including a supplemental petition impleading the Board of Regents and the PGH Director, permanently enjoined the University from dismissing them. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Material to review, respondents had manifested before the proceedings closed that they had no complaints regarding the procedure adopted and were satisfied with the conduct of the investigation, and the Court of Appeals explicitly found that they had a fair hearing and full opportunity to defend themselves without violation of substantive due process.

• Charter Power of Removal: Petitioner maintained that disciplinary power over private respondents derived from the express words of Section 6(e) of the University Charter, Act No. 1870 as amended, empowering the Board to remove employees for cause after investigation and hearing.
• Effect of Transfer to UP: Petitioner argued that transfer of the Hospital with its personnel to the University placed Hospital employees under University administrative power in discipline, suspension, or removal on a par with other University employees, absent any reservation of Civil Service jurisdiction in Executive Order No. 94.
• Administrative Interpretation and Efficiency: Petitioner relied on prior uncontested acts of Civil Service authorities endorsing Hospital cases to the University for lack of disciplinary jurisdiction, and on the need for harmony between the UP College of Medicine and the Hospital and for the simplicity, economy, and efficiency sought by Republic Act No. 51.

• Exclusive Civil Service Jurisdiction: Respondents countered that despite transfer of the Hospital to the University, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commissioner over them as classified civil service employees in matters of administrative discipline, suspension, and removal remained unimpaired and did not pass to University authorities.
• Governance by Civil Service Act: Respondents maintained that as classified civil service employees they were governed by Republic Act No. 2260 and not by the UP Charter insofar as removal, dismissal, or separation were concerned, invoking Section 695 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Proper Dismissing Authority and Nullity: Respondents argued that they should not be dismissed by the UP President but by the Civil Service Commissioner subject to appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, and sought nullification of the Investigating Committee's findings.

• Finality of UP Dismissal: Whether the dismissal of respondents by the Board of Regents is final, or requires further action by the Civil Service Commission.

• Finality of UP Dismissal: Final, requiring no further Civil Service action. The UP Charter specially lodges removal power in University authorities, constituting an exception to the Commissioner's general jurisdiction expressly preserved by Republic Act No. 2260.

• Finality of UP Dismissal: From inception the Civil Service laws conferred exclusive charge of formal investigations and final disciplinary authority on the Civil Service Commissioner, applied to PGH personnel while the Hospital was under the Office of the President. The Legislature nevertheless created specific exceptions, including Section 6(e) of the UP Charter and Section 14 of the Central Bank Charter, confirmed by Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260 granting final authority to the Commissioner “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law.” Because the President must be presumed cognizant of the Regents’ charter power, transfer of the Hospital with its personnel under Republic Act No. 51 and Executive Order No. 94, Section 158, without reserving Civil Service discipline as was done for appropriations, evinced intent to place Hospital employees under University discipline; contemporary executive endorsement of the Fernandez and Gorospe cases to the University, the Hospital’s service to the academic and training needs of the UP College of Medicine, and the policy of simplicity, economy, and efficiency reinforced that construction. Due process and the constitutional requirement of removal only for cause as provided by law were satisfied through investigation, hearing, and opportunity to defend, leaving the identity of the final disciplining authority of secondary importance and supporting finality in University authorities to preserve autonomy for the educational mission, in line with the reasoning applied to the Monetary Board in Castillo vs. Bayona.

• Special law exception to general Civil Service jurisdiction — While the Civil Service Law is the general provision for investigation, suspension, or removal of civil service employees, a special charter provision lodging that power in a particular body governs employees of that entity, though they remain subject to Civil Service Law in other respects. The UP Charter, Section 6(e), and the Central Bank Charter were treated as such exceptions, expressly preserved by the phrase “Except as otherwise provided by law” in Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260.
• Final disciplinary authority of UP over PGH personnel — The President and Board of Regents possess full and final authority in disciplining, suspending, and removing civil service employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital transferred with its personnel to the University, independently of the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals, provided removal is for cause after investigation and hearing.
• Due process compliance in administrative dismissal — Observance of the constitutional guarantee that no civil service officer or employee be removed except for cause as provided by law, together with notice, investigation, hearing, and full opportunity to defend, satisfies substantive rights; where so observed, the allocation of final decision-making between competent administrative authorities does not impair those rights.

• "To appoint, on the recommendation of the President of the University, professors, instructors, lecturers and other employees of the University; to fix their compensation, hours of service, and such other duties and conditions as it may deem proper; to grant them in its discretion leave of absence under such regulations as it may promulgate, any other provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after investigation and hearing shall have been had." — States the charter source of the Regents’ appointment and removal power relied upon as the special-law exception to Civil Service exclusivity.
• "(i) Except as otherwise provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all permanent officers and employees in the competitive or classified service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of such officers and employees; and to prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations governing the administration of discipline;" — Defines the Commissioner’s powers under the Civil Service Act of 1959 while confirming legislative recognition of statutory exceptions such as the UP Charter.
• "... we find that the petitioners-appellees had a fair hearing and full opportunity to defend themselves, and that their substantive right to due process was not violated by the action of the University authorities in adopting the report and recommendation of the UP-PGH investigating committee for the dismissal of petitioners-appellees." — Records the Court of Appeals’ factual finding adopted to show due process compliance supporting finality of the University dismissal.
• "we rule that the President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines possess full and final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil service employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals." — Articulates the ratio decidendi on final disciplinary jurisdiction over UP and PGH civil service employees.

• Castillo vs. Bayona, 106 Phil. 1121 — Followed and applied mutatis mutandis as controlling analogy holding that Section 14 of the Central Bank Charter vested the Monetary Board with investigation and removal power over Central Bank officials despite their civil service status, supporting the same result for UP authorities under the UP Charter.

• Section 6(e), Act No. 1870 as amended by Act No. 2759 and Act No. 3745 (UP Charter) — Vests the Board of Regents with power to appoint and to remove professors, instructors, lecturers, and other employees for cause after investigation and hearing; applied as the special-law basis for final UP disciplinary jurisdiction.
• Section 695, Revised Administrative Code as amended — Provided exclusive Civil Service Commissioner jurisdiction over removal, separation, suspension, and formal administrative investigations of subordinate officers and employees, with appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals; invoked by respondents but held subject to charter exceptions.
• Section 16(i), Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) — Grants the Commissioner final authority over removal, separation, and suspension “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law”; construed to confirm exceptions such as the UP Charter.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 51 — Authorized the President to reorganize executive departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, and government-owned instrumentalities for simplicity, economy, and efficiency; implemented through transfer of the Hospital to UP.
• Section 158, Executive Order No. 94, series of 1947 — Transferred the Philippine General Hospital from the Office of the President to the University with its personnel, powers, functions, duties, records, equipment, supplies, and unexpended balances; construed as placing Hospital employees under UP disciplinary authority absent a reservation.
• Article XII, Section 4, Constitution; Due Process Clause, Bill of Rights — Require that no civil service officer or employee be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law with due process; found satisfied by the committee investigation, hearing, and opportunity to defend.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., took no part.