ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145562.January 16, 2001]

BU�AG vs. CSC et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 16 2001.

G.R. No. 145562 (Jesusito L. Bu�ag vs. Civil Service Commission, Board of Trustees, Philippine Retirement Authority and Vernette Umali-Paco, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager .)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing his petition on the ground that the resolution of the Civil Service Commission terminating his employment as Assistant General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) for unsatisfactory performance had already become final and executory for failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.

On February 16, 1995, petitioner received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of PRA stating:

In view of the CES letter dated May 30, 1994, wherein you were informed that your performance for the year 1993 was "Unsatisfactory", you are hereby served notice that pursuant to PRA Board Resolution No. 04, Series of 1995, as re-affirmed by Board Resolution No. 08, Series of 1995 which further noted your performance for 1994 as "Unsatisfactory", your services as Assistant General manager has been terminated effective fifteen (15) days upon receipt hereof.

Attached to said letter was a Secretary's Certificate dated January 1995 concerning PRA Board Resolution No. 04, Series of 1995 which pertinently provides:

WHEREAS, an "UNSATISFACTORY" performance rating does not justify the continued stay of Atty. Bu�ag in the position much less the continuous drain of funds from PRA for performance below par;

WHEREAS, CESO documents further revealed that Atty. Bu�ag has not acquired the appropriate CES eligibility required for the position of Assistant General Manager;

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is hereby resolved to terminate the services of Atty. Jesusito L. Bu�ag as Assistant General Manager effective thirty (30) days from receipt of notice hereof.

APPROVED, RESOLUTION NO. 04, SERIES OF 1995

Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission which, however, affirmed petitioner's removal from office in a resolution dated July 20, 1999, a copy of which petitioner received on August 5, 1999. Displeased, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on September 7, 1999 which was way beyond the 15-day period within which a motion for reconsideration may be filed.

Notwithstanding the delay, the Civil Service Commission admitted the motion for reconsideration which it nonetheless denied presumably for the precise reason that it was filed late. Unperturbed, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the above assailed decision.

Thus, the instant petition which must necessarily fail.

Section 50 , Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations explicitly provides that the decisions of the Commission shall be immediately executory unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. Corollarily, Section 46 of the same Rule provides that "a motion for reconsideration may be filed by the party adversely affected by the decision of the Merit System Protection Board or the Commission as the case may be within 15 days from receipt of the decision." Thus, petitioner had only until August 20 within which to file his motion for reconsideration. Having failed to seasonably file his motion for reconsideration, the CSC decision became final and executory. Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition.

On several occasions, this Court has ruled that "(t)he Civil Service Commission has no power or authority to reconsider its decision which has become final and executory" even if the Commission later discovers that its decision is erroneous. "The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice (Mendiola vs. CSC, 221 SCRA 295 [1993]).

Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend, much less revoke. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final at some definite date fixed by law. To allow courts to amend final judgments will result in endless litigation (Young vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 584 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE