University of the Philippines vs. Regino

A decision of the Civil Service Commission becomes final and executory if the aggrieved party fails to appeal it to the Supreme Court via certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt of the denial of its first motion for reconsideration; the filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration does not toll or reset this period. Consequently, a final CSC order may be enforced through a writ of mandamus.

Private respondent Angel Pamplina, a permanent mimeograph operator at the UP School of Economics, was dismissed from service on June 22, 1982, after being found guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for leaking examination questions. His internal appeal to the UP Board of Regents was denied. Pamplina then sought recourse from the Merit Systems Board (MSB), which exonerated him and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. UP's appeal of the MSB decision was sustained by the Civil Service Commission. UP, through the Office of the Solicitor General, subsequently filed a second motion for reconsideration with the CSC, which was denied as a prohibited pleading. Pamplina then filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court to compel his reinstatement, which the RTC granted. UP filed the present certiorari petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC decision and the CSC orders.

• Nature of the Action: The petitioners (UP and its School of Economics) filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the RTC decision granting a writ of mandamus and the CSC resolutions ordering the reinstatement of private respondent Angel Pamplina.
• Dismissal and Administrative Appeals: Pamplina was dismissed for dishonesty. After internal UP appeals failed, he sought relief from the Merit Systems Board (MSB), which reversed his dismissal. UP appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which initially reversed the MSB and upheld the dismissal. Upon Pamplina's motion for reconsideration, the CSC reversed itself and affirmed the MSB's order of reinstatement.
• Procedural Missteps by UP: UP's counsel (Office of Legal Services) filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, UP's new counsel (Office of the Solicitor General) filed a second motion for reconsideration. The CSC denied this second motion as a prohibited pleading under Section 39(b) of PD 807.
• Finality and Enforcement: Pamplina moved for execution of the CSC's reinstatement order. UP opposed, arguing the resolutions were not yet final. The CSC granted execution. Pamplina then filed a petition for mandamus in the RTC, which was granted.
• UP's Core Contention: UP argued that under its charter (Act 1870), it possesses institutional autonomy and that the UP Board of Regents has "full and final authority" over the discipline of its employees, independent of the Civil Service Commission, citing University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals (1971).

• Jurisdictional Autonomy: Petitioner UP maintained that under its charter (Act 1870), the UP Board of Regents possesses exclusive and final authority to discipline, suspend, and remove its employees, independent of the Civil Service Commission. It relied on the pre-PD 807 precedent of University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals.
• Procedural Defects: Petitioner argued that the CSC resolutions had not yet become final and executory when the mandamus petition was filed, implying the RTC acted prematurely.

• Appellate Jurisdiction of CSC: Respondent CSC and Pamplina countered that as a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, UP is part of the Civil Service under the 1987 Constitution (Article IX-B, Section 2(1)). Therefore, administrative disciplinary cases involving its employees fall under the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC pursuant to PD 807 (the Civil Service Law).
• Finality of CSC Orders: Respondents argued that UP failed to seasonably appeal the CSC's final resolutions to the Supreme Court. The filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration did not stop the running of the 30-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari, rendering the CSC orders final and executory and enforceable via mandamus.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Civil Service Commission has appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases involving employees of the University of the Philippines.
• Finality and Enforceability: Whether the CSC's resolutions ordering Pamplina's reinstatement had become final and executory, thereby making the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court proper.

• Jurisdiction: UP is a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, thus part of the Civil Service under the 1987 Constitution. PD 807 vests in the CSC appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases involving civil service employees, including those of UP. The pre-PD 807 case of University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals is inapplicable because the Civil Service Law it relied upon contained an "except as otherwise provided by law" qualifier that PD 807 removed, thereby eliminating any special exemption for UP.
• Finality and Enforceability: The CSC's resolution denying UP's first motion for reconsideration was received on April 22, 1988. UP had until May 22, 1988 (30 days) to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Instead, it filed a prohibited second motion for reconsideration on June 10, 1988, well beyond the reglementary period. This did not toll the period for appeal. Consequently, the CSC resolutions became final and executory. A final judgment may be enforced by a writ of mandamus, which the RTC correctly issued.

• Finality of Administrative Decisions — Decisions, orders, or rulings of constitutional commissions like the Civil Service Commission become final and executory if not appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt. The filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration does not interrupt or extend this period. Once final, the judgment is immutable and unalterable, and its execution becomes a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus.
• Civil Service Coverage of Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations with Original Charters — Under the 1987 Constitution, the Civil Service embraces all government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, such as the University of the Philippines created by a special law (Act 1870). Consequently, administrative disciplinary actions involving their employees are subject to the jurisdiction and appellate review of the Civil Service Commission pursuant to PD 807.

• "The petitioners therefore had thirty days from April 22, 1988, or until May 22, 1988, within which to elevate their case to this Court. They did not do so and instead filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was not allowed under Article IX, Section 39(b) of PD 807." — This passage underscores the fatal procedural error that led to the dismissal of the petition and the finality of the CSC orders.
• "The assailed orders having become final and executory, Pamplina had every right to seek mandamus to compel their execution. Respondent Judge Regino was quite correct when he issued the questioned writ." — This excerpt directly links the finality of the administrative order to the propriety of the mandamus remedy.

• University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 64 (1971) — Distinguished and held inapplicable. The Court ruled that this case, which upheld UP's exclusive disciplinary authority, was decided under the old Civil Service Law of 1959, which contained an "except as otherwise provided by law" clause. PD 807, which governs the present case, removed this qualifier, thus subjecting UP fully to the CSC's appellate jurisdiction.

• Article IX-B, Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Civil Service embraces all government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. This provision was used to establish that UP, as such an entity, is within the Civil Service and subject to the jurisdiction of the CSC.
• Section 9(j) and Section 37(a), Presidential Decree No. 807 (The Civil Service Law of 1975) — Vest in the Civil Service Commission the power to hear and decide on appeal administrative disciplinary cases involving penalties such as dismissal from office. These provisions were applied to affirm the CSC's jurisdiction over Pamplina's case.
• Article IX-A, Section 7, 1987 Constitution — Provides that any decision, order, or ruling of a Constitutional Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt. This provision established the reglementary period that UP failed to observe.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Florentino P. Feliciano, Teodoro R. Padilla, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, Florenz D. Regalado, Alfredo L. Davide, Jr., Josue N. Nocon, Jose C. Bellosillo, Jose A.R. Melo, and Ricardo J. Quiason.