ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164334.
SAN JOSE WATER DISTRICT vs. CORPUS
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder; for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 164334 (San Jose Water District as represented by its General Manager Engr. Sonia S. Nacua and/or Chairman of the Board of Directors Atty. Antonio LL. Paguia, Jr. v. Potenciana B. Corpus.)
Before us is an Entry of Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration filed by, and in which, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) enters its appearance in behalf of petitioner San Jose City Water District (SJCWD) and prays for the reconsideration of our Resolution dated 3 August 2004, which dismissed the Petition for Review dated 22 July 2004. The petition was dismissed for lack of showing that petitioner, a government-owned or controlled corporation, has complied with the necessary conditions precedent before it could validly engage the services of the private counsel which filed the petition in its behalf.
The OGCC's entry of appearance neither negates nor cures the lack of valid authority of SJCWD's then private counsel to represent it when the latter filed the petition in its behalf. That SJCWD upon receipt of the Court's Resolution immediately engaged the services of the OGCC even serves to highlight the earlier want of authority and significantly reinforces the court's dismissal of the petition.
Moreover, a review of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals reveals no reversible error that would warrant the allowance of the petition. The case stemmed from SJCWD's dismissal of its Industrial Relation Management Officer, private respondent Potenciana B. Corpus ("Corpus").1 The Court of Appeals, affirming the Civil Service Commission, noted that Corpus was never notified in writing by SJCWD of the charges against her. This failure contravenes Section 48(2), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, which governs the procedure in administrative cases against non-presidential appointees. 2
It should be emphasized that the Constitution itself mandates that no officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.3 The State and its instrumentalities are obliged to observe the restrictions and responsibilities imposed upon them by the Constitution itself, and their inadvertent or conscious failure to do so is never to be sanctioned.
That there was no written notice of the charges against Corpus is evident in the evidence at hand, and even on the submissions of the SJWCD in its Petition. SJWCD diligently attached to its Petition the documents attendant to its investigation of the matter, but not one of these documents is a written notice addressed to Corpus that details the charges against her. The Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals concluded that no such notice was ever issued, and there is no reason to dispute such factual finding.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Azcuna and Chico-Nazario, JJ., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Rollo , p. 52. Corpus was alleged to have destroyed official leave records in her custody. She denied the charges, alleging instead that it was the complainant against her, Giovanni Sanchez, who had actually destroyed the records.
2 Sction 48(2), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that: " In the case of a complaint filed by any other person, the complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony and those of his witnesses together with his documentary evidence. If on the basis of such papers a prima facie is found not to exist, the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case. If a prima facie case exists he shall notify the respondent in writing, of the charges against the latter, to which shall be attached copies of the complaint, sworn statements and other documents submitted, and the respondent shall be allowed not less than seventy-two hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the charges in writing under oath.."
3 Section 2(3), Article IX(B), Constitution.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
