Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > December 2002 Decisions > G.R. No. 146927 December 10, 2002 - MARCELO G. TUAZON, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO GODOY, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 146927. December 10, 2002.]

MARCELO G. TUAZON, JR. and RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA, Petitioners, v. GUILLERMO GODOY and ROMMEL TRINIDAD, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 26, 2000 2 and its Resolution dated January 24, 2001 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 46598 4 holding that the Civil Service Commission did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Guillermo Godoy and Rommel Trinidad, Respondents, for lack of a prima facie case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Petitioner Marcelo G. Tuazon, Jr. is the proprietor of Celcon Construction (Celcon), a private firm, while co-petitioner Rodolfo M. Agdeppa is Tuazon’s Attorney-In-Fact. Respondents Guillermo A. Godoy and Rommel Trinidad are the Officer-In-Charge and the Principal Engineer, respectively, of the National Housing Authority (NHA) Maharlika Village Project in Taguig, Metro Manila.

On February 2, 1995, the NHA Board of Directors issued Resolution No. 3122 approving Celcon’s bid for the construction of a two-storey multi-purpose building at the Maharlika Village Project (Maharlika Project). The construction is for a period of 120 calendar days with a cost of Seven Hundred Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty-One and 15/100 (P704,951.15) Pesos. 5 On March 20, 1995, NHA and Celcon formalized the contract.

Petitioners alleged in their petition that during the construction of the Maharlika Project, they encountered several problems in dealing with the NHA officials, specifically respondents. Before acting on Celcon’s request for a 15% advance payment, 6 OIC Godoy made several unreasonable demands. He deliberately withheld Celcon’s application for Change Order/Extra Work. As a result, NHA issued a letter dated June 6, 1995 warning Celcon that it had incurred work slippage of 17.24%. 7 Petitioners also alleged that respondents made it difficult for Celcon to collect payments by manipulating the accomplishment reports necessary for its Progress Billings. 8

Thus, on September 29, 1995, Celcon notified NHA that effective October 1, 1995, it will stop construction work because it could no longer pay its suppliers and workers due to its (NHA) refusal to pay for the work already completed. 9

On November 29, 1995, petitioners filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) a Sworn Statement charging respondents with dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Petitioners alleged that they suffered financial losses and other injuries because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Respondents recommended the termination of the contract and government take-over of the project despite the fact that the construction was ahead of schedule;

2) They delayed payments for specific contract work, thus forcing Celcon to stop construction for lack of funds;

3) They arbitrarily and maliciously required the petitioners to submit certain documents before processing a legitimate progress billing; and

4) They concealed vital documents to the prejudice of petitioners.

On September 2, 1996, respondents submitted their counter-affidavits.

On January 28, 1997, the CSC issued its questioned Resolution dismissing the complaint against respondents.

Forthwith, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 97-4211 dated October 21, 1997. They then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed. Their motion for reconsideration was eventually denied.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the CSC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their complaint for lack of a prima facie case; and that the error of judgment by the CSC is not correctable by certiorari but by appeal.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In its comment on the petition, the CSC, through the Solicitor General, asserted that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) The impugned Resolutions have long attained finality because the wrong mode of remedy (certiorari) resorted to by petitioners did not toll the running of the period of appeal; 10 and

2) The CSC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ complaint since respondents did not violate the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. 11

In their reply, petitioners maintained that under Section 49(1), Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987), which provides that appeals shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision, and pursuant to the ruling of this Court in University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, 12 they are not allowed to file an appeal. The term "party adversely affected" who can interpose an appeal refers to the respondent or the party against whom the administrative case is filed. Because they (petitioners) were the complainants, not the respondents, in the administrative case before the CSC, they are not considered as the "party adversely affected" authorized to appeal from the CSC decision. Verily, their only remedy before the Court of Appeals is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

We find for the respondents.

The Court of Appeals should have dismissed outright the petition for certiorari. Petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of remedy. Under Section 5, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review. Instead of filing with the Appellate Court a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the CSC Resolution dated October 21, 1997, petitioners resorted to certiorari. As held by this Court in numerous cases, a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. 13

Even if a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the correct remedy, however, the same must fail.

In dismissing petitioners’ complaint after conducting a preliminary investigation pursuant to its Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations, the CSC held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A careful evaluation of the records and arguments of the opposing parties, yielded absence of a prima facie case against Guillermo Godoy and Rommel Trinidad for the charge of dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

"Complainants failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents. At most, the conflict arose from the disagreements of the parties on the administrative aspect of the project, that is payment for progress billings and dates to submit certain requirements, which pertained mostly on the terms of the contract. The matters at issue are beyond the authority of this Commission absence of (sic) showing that a public servant violated Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

"In the case of Arca v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, November 24, 1958, the Supreme Court held: ‘for dishonesty to prosper, an absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad faith must be shown.’ In the complaint there is no prima facie showing that respondents committed the same.

"In the offense of grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule or regulation must be manifest (Landrito v. CSC, 223 SCRA 551). In the instant case, there is no showing of clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule on the part of respondents.

"Anent the allegation of oppression, the same is defined as an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority (Ochate v. Deling, 105 Phil. 390).

"With the said standards, the Commission finds that respondents could not have committed or even demonstrated an act of oppression against complainant." 14

We are convinced that the CSC validly dismissed the petitioners’ complaint. The CSC found no evidence to sustain the finding that respondents committed dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service punishable under the Civil Service Law. It bears stressing that the CSC concluded that respondents did not violate any Civil Service Rule.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Indeed, we cannot discern any taint of arbitrariness on the part of the CSC in dismissing petitioners’ complaint. It is well within the CSC’s discretion to determine whether a prima facie case exists to sustain the complaint. As we held in Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission, 15 the appreciation of the evidence submitted by the parties is a prerogative of the administrative body, subject to reversal only upon a clear showing of arbitrariness. And in Pabu-aya v. Court of Appeals, 16 we held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . As a general rule, the findings of fact of the respondents Commission and Court of Appeals are accorded great weight. In a plethora of cases, this Court has held that lower courts are in a better position to determine the truth of the matter in litigation since the pieces of evidence are presented before them and they are able to look into the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand. Furthermore, quasi-judicial bodies like the Civil Service Commission are better equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since it is within the field of their expertise. Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case. 17 It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower court, tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court. 18

In sum, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioners.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated April 26, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 46598 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

2. Rollo, at 16-28.

3. Id., at 30.

4. Both penned by Agnir, Jr., J., with Agcaoili and Dacudao, JJ., concurring (Sixth Special Division).

5. Court of Appeals Decision dated April 26, 2000, Rollo, at 17.

6. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Pres. Decree No. 1594, provide: "CI 4 — Advance Payment — 1. The Government shall, upon written request of the contractor, which shall be submitted as a contract document, make an advance payment to the contractor in an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total contract price, to be made in lump sum or at most two installments according to the schedule specified in the Instructions to Bidders and other relevant Tender Documents."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. Sworn Statement, Rollo, at 38-41.

8. Id., at 42-49.

9. Court of Appeals Decision, supra, at 18.

10. Comment, Rollo, at 101.

11. Id., at 105.

12. 228 SCRA 207 (1993).

13. Ong v. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 768, 771 (2001); Cano-Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 341 SCRA 670, 678 (2000) citing Sempio v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 617, 626 (1996), Fajardo v. Bautista, 232 SCRA 291, 298 (1994), and Sy v. Romero, 214 SCRA 187, 193 (1992); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81, 87 (2000); Barangay Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City v. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 48, 51 (1999); National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 255, 265 (1999); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 376, 383 (1999); Government Service Insurance System v. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421, 425 (1999).

14. Rollo, at 21-22.

15. 223 SCRA 747, 753 (1993).

16. 356 SCRA 651, 657 (2001).

17. Citing Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 585 (1998).

18. Citing Manzano v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 688 (1997).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 5394 December 2, 2002 - RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.

  • A.C. No. 5398 December 3, 2002 - ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA v. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO

  • A.C. No. 5763 December 3, 2002 - GABRIEL T. INGLES v. ATTY. VICTOR DELA SERNA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1552 December 3, 2002 - JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES v. ALBERTO R. VIDOR

  • G.R. No. 125350 December 3, 2002 - HON. RTC JUDGES MERCEDES G. DADOLE, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129788 December 3, 2002 - OROPEZA MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 135048 December 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOMER MANDAO

  • G.R. Nos. 138361-63 December 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JIMMY S. PLURAD

  • G.R. Nos. 140779-80 December 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAURITO S. ARRIOLA

  • G.R. No. 143978 December 3, 2002 - MANUEL B. TAN v. EDUARDO R. GULLAS and NORMA S. GULLAS

  • G.R. Nos. 145343-46 December 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO CALDERON

  • G.R. No. 146030 December 3, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF FELIPE ALEJAGA SR.

  • G.R. No. 154072 December 3, 2002 - ALFREDO S. PAGUIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1402 December 4, 2002 - ABRAHAM L. MENDOVA v. CRISANTO B. AFABLE

  • G.R. No. 137914 December 4, 2002 - JOHNSON LEE and SONNY MORENO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 139950 December 4, 2002 - SPS. ANACLETO and AVELINA MAURICIO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Fourteenth Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144293 December 4, 2002 - JOSUE R. LADIANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 147968 December 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO BITANCOR alias "BOY

  • G.R. No. 151370 December 4, 2002 - ASIA PACIFIC CHARTERING (PHILS.) INC. v. MARIA LINDA R. FAROLAN

  • G.R. No. 127904 December 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ESTEBAN VICTOR y PENIS

  • G.R. No. 131923 December 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NIEL C. PIEDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145522 December 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZOSIMO CANTOMAYOR y TAHUM alias JESUS

  • G.R. No. 153947 December 5, 2002 - ANTONIO I. RODRIGUEZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)

  • A.M. No. 01-3-173-RTC December 9, 2002 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BACOLOD CITY, BRANCH 46

  • G.R. No. 134784 December 9, 2002 - CARLOS M. ARCONA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139054 December 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLITO BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141800 December 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELENO P. PARACALE

  • G.R. No. 143783 December 9, 2002 - DANTE SARRAGA v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 145425 December 9, 2002 - SALVADOR K. MOLL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466 December 10, 2002 - CORAZON GUERRERO v. JUDGE MARCIAL M. DERAY

  • B.M. No. 979 and 986 December 10, 2002 - RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS v. MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA

  • G.R. No. 139802 December 10, 2002 - VICENTE C. PONCE v. ALSONS CEMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146452-53 December 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTEMIO D. OCHEA

  • G.R. No. 146927 December 10, 2002 - MARCELO G. TUAZON, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO GODOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150605 December 10, 2002 - EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. v. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142131 December 11, 2002 - SPS. DARIO and MATILDE LACAP v. JOUVET ONG LEE

  • G.R. No. 142277 December 11, 2002 - ARWOOD INDUSTRIES v. D.M. CONSUNJI

  • G.R. No. 150870 December 11, 2002 - HONORATA G. BAYLON v. FACT-FINDING INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1224 December 12, 2002 - P/SINSP. OMEGA JIREH D. FIDEL v. JUDGE FELIX A. CARAOS

  • G.R. No. 147943 December 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICO B. BAGAUA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1308 December 16, 2002 - BONIFACIO LAW OFFICE v. Judge REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • G.R. No. 121159 December 16, 2002 - VSC COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122720 December 16, 2002 - C & S FISHFARM CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146106 December 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO VILLANUEVA, JR.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1252 December 17, 2002 - NELSON RODRIGUEZ and RICARDO CAMACHO v. JUDGE RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • G.R. No. 125352 December 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO G. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136427 December 17, 2002 - SONIA F. LONDRES, ET AL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136768 December 17, 2002 - HUGO ADOPTANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 147200 December 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPHRE TAJADA

  • G.R. No. 147649 December 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANK LOBRIGAS

  • G.R. No. 147836 December 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIP HAMMER

  • G.R. No. 148571 December 17, 2002 - GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HON. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148919 December 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TERESA CORPUZ y VARGAS and MARCY SANTOS y JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 149736 December 17, 2002 - MELANIO L. MENDOZA and MARIO E. IBARRA v. COMELEC and LEONARDO B. ROMAN

  • G.R. No. 153199 December 17, 2002 - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. NLRC and DATIVO M. CACHO

  • A.M. No. 2002-8-SC December 18, 2002 - ZENAIDA DE GUZMAN v. ANTONIO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 139033 December 18, 2002 - JOVENDO DEL CASTILLO v. HON. ROSARIO TORRECAMPO

  • G.R. No. 140647 December 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO ANSOWAS y AMPATIN

  • G.R. No. 144634 December 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AURELIO R. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 149906 December 26, 2002 - Spouses HORACIO and FELISA BENITO v. AGAPITA SAQUITAN-RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 150240 December 26, 2002 - CORINTHIAN REALTY v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4766 December 27, 2002 - T’BOLI AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT v. ATTY. NEPTHALI P. SOLILAPSI

  • A.M. No. MTJ 02-1419 December 27, 2002 - EDUARDO M. MARTINEZ v. JUDGE ORLANDO C. PAGUIO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1493 December 27, 2002 - VICENTA MALAGGAN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO C. MABAZZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120004 December 27, 2002 - ILUMINADA DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and JORGE ESGUERRA

  • G.R. No. 122502 December 27, 2002 - LORENZO M. SARMIENTO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128823-24 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 129874 December 27, 2002 - JOAN M. FLORES v. HON. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DONEL GO and VAL DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 134506 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CORLITO C. LINDO and FEDERICO C. LINDO

  • G.R. No. 139256 December 27, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SULPICIO TANCINCO

  • G.R. No. 139458 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ESTEBAN CANTILA

  • G.R. No. 139479 December 27, 2002 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. NEPOMUCENO PRODUCTIONS, INC., Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 139694 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CENON C. PAGSANJAN

  • G.R. No. 140209 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZAINUDIN DALANDAS

  • G.R. No. 142577 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUPERTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 144025 December 27, 2002 - SPS. RENE and LERIO GONZAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148825 December 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SUSAN CANTON

  • G.R. No. 154278 December 27, 2002 - VICTORY LINER v. HEIRS OF ANDRES MALECDAN

  • G.R. No. 153666 December 27, 2002 - DIONISIO L. TORRES and ENRICO M. ALVAREZ v. HON. FRANCIS F. GARCHITORENA