THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HENRY A.

SOJOR,
respondent

554 SCRA 160, May 22, 2008

FACTS:

Herein respondent, Henry Sojor, president of Negros Oriental State

University (formerly known as Central Visayas Polytechnic College) was
charged of nepotism, dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before
the Civil Service Commission.

Herein petitioner moved to dismiss these cases on the grounds of lack of

jurisdiction. Academic freedom was also invoked.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not a president of a State University is outside the reach of

the disciplinary jurisdiction constitutionally granted to the Civil Service
Commission
2. Whether or not the assumption by the Civil Service Commission of
jurisdiction over a president of a State University violate academic
freedom

RULING:

1. No, the president of a State University is still within the reach of the
disciplinary jurisdiction constitutionally granted to the Civil Service
Commission (CSC).

As explained by the court, “except as otherwise provided by the Constitution

or by law, the CSC shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal,
separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service
and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of
such officers and employees.

In the case at bar, it is clear that while the Board of Regents (BOT) of the
Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) has the sole power of
administration over the university, such power is not exclusive in the matter
of disciplining and removing its employees. Instead, such power is
concurrent between the BOT and the CSC.
Hence, herein respondent Henry Sojor, the president of NORSU, is within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC.

2. No, the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a State

University does not violate academic freedom.

While it is certain that academic institutions and personnel are granted with
wide latitude of academic freedom, such freedom does not give an institution
the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis. For that
reason, as the court explained in its ruling, a school official, who is a
member of the civil service, may not be permitted to commit violations of
civil service rules under the justification that he was free to do so under the
principle of academic freedom.

In the case at bar, the respondent is facing charges of grave offenses

punishable with suspension or even dismissal. And evidently, these cases
have not been acted upon by the university officials based on the re-
appointment they have given to respondent. And according to the law,
in “complaints against civil service officials and employees which are not
acted upon by the agencies and such other complaints requiring direct or
immediate action, in the interest of justice” the CSC may take over.

Hence, the assumption of the CSC of jurisdiction over herein respondent

State University president is only deemed proper and not in violation of
academic freedom.