MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: IN RE: DATE: August 27, 2013 Question/s Presented Does the Civil Service Commission

have the authority or the power to execute its judgments and final orders or resolution of June 20, 1990 entitling the private respondents reinstatement, payment of back wages and payment to the heirs of Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel their back wages who have since passed away? Short Answer/s No. The Civil Service Commission does not have a power to execute final orders; it is a constitutional commission vested with quasi-legislative powers thus can promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practices but it shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights and even if conceding to the contrary, heirs of Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel are not entitled to back wages since they (Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel; both deceased) are not completely exonerated from the administrative charge filed against them. Statement of Facts On May, 1981, Petitioner-defendant, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) dismissed six employees [Domingo Canero, Renato Navarro, Belen Guerrero, Elizar Namuco, and Eusebio Manuel] as being notoriously undesirable, having been allegedly found to be connected with irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials basing such dismissal on Article IX, Presidential Decree No. 807 in relation to LOI 14-A and/or LOI No. 72 to which five of the six dismissed employees appealed to the Merit Systems Board. The Board found the dismissals indeed illegal because

effected without formal charges having been filed or there was no opportunity given to the said employees to answer and ordered the remand of the cases to Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner-defendant then appealed to the plaintiff-respondent, Civil Service Commission to which it rendered a resolution on October 21, 1987 ruling that the dismissal was indeed illegal and directing petitioner-defendant to reinstate employees with payment of back wages and benefits. Unconvinced, GSIS appealed to the Supreme Court to which affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with a modification that it eliminated the payment of back salaries until the outcome of the investigation and reinstatement of only 3 employees since the other two had died. The heirs of the deceased [Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel] sought execution of the order from the CSC which was granted. GSIS opposed and came to the Supreme Court on certiorari contending that the CSC allegedly does not have any power to execute its resolution or judgment.

Discussion The Civil Service Commission does not have the power to execute its judgments and final orders or resolutions. In the first place, Civil Service Commission erred in their judgment that the employees were illegally dismissed. The said dismissal was conducted legally since the action was based on Presidential Decree No. 807 Article IX, Section 36: General Provisions of Discipline proving that the employees act, having been found to be allegedly connected with the irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials, can be classified under being notoriously

undesirable on the grounds of disciplinary action and by incurring such act, GSIS may dismiss or terminate such employees without the necessity of filing charges as provided in paragraph 2 of the Letters of Instruction (LOI) No. 14-A. Moreover, Civil Service Commission mainly exercises quasi-legislative powers as stated in the Common Provisions Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. And even if conceding to the contrary, the writ of execution issued on June 20, 1990 is void because it varies the Supreme Courts Resolution of July 4, 1988 stating the elimination of the payment of back wages to private respondents (the employees) until the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is known, considering the gravity of the offenses imputed to them and that the order of reinstatement applies only to three of the employees, namely: Domingo Canero, Renato Navarro and Belen Guerrero since respondents Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel have since passed away. Since the deceased respondents are not completely exonerated from the administrative case filed against them they are not entitled to back wages the same as what has been held in Clemente v. Commission on Audit, my client wins since the petitioner in this case might have been able to avail the payment of back wages given that he has no pending administrative charge or any disciplinary action against him if his claimed right was anchored on legal basis.

Conclusion In light of all the given facts, Civil Service Commission (CSC) therefore, does not have the authority to exercise final judgment and resolutions since they erred in their judgment that there was an illegal dismissal and also, Civil Service Commission abused its discretion since the nature of their power is quasi-legislative and that the heirs of Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel are not entitled to the payment of back wages.