Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 189446 : November 15, 2010] GARRY E. GAERLAN, CHARITO G. BRAVO, MARIA FE VELADO AND ARMANDO VELADO, PETITIONERS, VERSUS ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE SERVICES (AFPCES), REPRESENTING THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2010, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 189446 - GARRY E. GAERLAN, CHARITO G. BRAVO, MARIA FE VELADO and ARMANDO VELADO, petitioners, versus ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE SERVICES (AFPCES), representing the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

RESOLUTION

Petitioners appeal the Decision^[1] dated April 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103764 where the CA ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed NLRC Order of March 29, 2007 and Resolution dated April 28, 2008 in NLRC-NCR CA No. 050755-06 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent NLRC is DIRECTED to give due course to [AFPCES'] appeal without the posting of an appeal bond and to resolve the appeal with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED.^[2]

Petitioners also appeal the CA Resolution^[3] dated August 27, 2009, denying the motion for reconsideration.

In support of their appeal, petitioners, employees of respondent Aimed Forces of the Philippines Commissary and Exchange Services (AFPCES), allege that the consequence of the CA ruling that AFPCES is a government entity is that they are government employees. Their complaint for illegal dismissal is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Yet, the CA gave due course to AFPCES' appeal of the Labor Arbiter's decision without an appeal bond and directed NLRC to resolve the appeal.^[4] Noting the apparent inconsistency of the CA ruling, petitioners pose two questions for our consideration: Is AFPCES a government entity? Are they government employees?^[5]

Subsequently, however, petitioners called our attention to the recent case of Magdalena Hidalgo, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines for and in behalf of AFPCES^[6] wherein we held that employees of AFPCES are government personnel since they are employed by an agency attached to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).^[7] Petitioners now agree with AFPCES' contention that they are covered by the civil service.^[8]

Indeed, we have ruled in Hidalgo that, employees of AFPCES are government employees governed by civil service laws and procedures, to wit:

In Philippine Refining Company v. Court of Appeals, we declared that AFPCES is a government agency that is not immune from suit since it is engaged in proprietary activities. We find no compelling reason to deviate from such pronouncement. The historical background of its creation and establishment indicates that AFPCES is an agency under the direct control and supervision of the AFP as it was established to take charge of the operations and management of all commissary facilities in military establishments all over the country. By clear implication of law, all AFPCES personnel should therefore be classified as government employees and any appointment, promotion, discipline and termination of its.civilian staff should be governed by appropriate civil service laws and procedures.^[9]

Considering that petitioners are also employees of AFPCES, an agency attached to the AFP, they are government employees. Conformably with our pronouncement in Hidalgo, the proper body which has jurisdiction to hear their case is the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no jurisdiction to resolve the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioners against AFPCES. Thus:

[S]ince it cannot be denied that petitioners are government employees, the proper body that has jurisdiction to hear the case is the CSC. x x x

Petitioners are government personnel since they are employed by an agency attached to the AFP. Consequently, as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the Labor Arbiter's decision on their complaint for illegal dismissal cannot be made to stand since the same was issued without jurisdiction. Any decision issued without jurisdiction is a total nullity, and may be struck down at any time.^[10]

Consequently, we must set aside the CA Decision directing the NLRC to give due course to and resolve AFPCES' appeal. But rather than ordering petitioners to re-file their case before the CSC which will only duplicate much of the proceedings already accomplished, we also deem it best, as in the case of Hidalgo, to order the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to forward the records of the case presently in their possession to the CSC which is hereby directed to take cognizance of the case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated April 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 103764 and its Resolution dated August 27, 2009 are SET ASIDE.

The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission are DIRECTED to forward the records of the case (NLRC NCR CA No. 050755-06) to the Civil Service Commission, which is ordered to proceed with the resolution of the case on the merits with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 24-37. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliflo-Hormachuelos with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicenie and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring.

^[2] Id. at 36.

^[3] Id. at 38-39.

^[4] Id. at 9-10.

^[5] Id. at 10.

^[6] G.R. No. 179793, July 5, 2010.

^[7] Rollo, p. 68.

^[8] Id. at 54, 67.

^[9] Supra note 6 at 7.

^[10] Id. at 10.