8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 154652 August 14, 2009

PRUDENCIO M. REYES, JR.,Petitioner,vs.SIMPICIO C. !EISARIO andEMMANUE S. MAICDEM,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

!RION, J.:

his petition for revie! on certiorari"challen#es the Court of $ppeals %C$& decision of

Nove'ber (), (**"(

and resolution of $u#ust ", (**(+

that co''onl reversed theOffice of the O'buds'an Decision of -ul ", (***./he petitioner i'putes error onthe C$ for entertainin# the respondents0 appeal of the O'buds'an0s decision, and forthe reversal that follo!ed. 1e 'aintains that the O'buds'an0s decision !as final andunappealable under Section ), Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of theO'buds'an %the OmbudsmanRules&2and the C$ should not have entertained it onappeal.

T"E #ACTS

he factual antecedents, based on the records before us, are su''ari3ed belo!.

On March +, (***, respondents Deput $d'inistrators Si'plicio 4elisario, -r. andE''anuel 4. Malicde'5%respondents&, alon# !ith Daniel 6andin#in and Rodolfo S. De-esus, all officers of the 6ocal 7ater 8tilities $d'inistration %678$&, filed before theOffice of the O'buds'an a $%&'&()* $o'+*)&(ta#ainst 678$ $d'inistratorPrudencio M. Rees, -r. %petitioner& for &o*)t&o( o- S$t&o( / o- R+u*&$ A$t No./019, or the $nti9:raft and Corrupt Practices $ct.

On March "5, (***, or onl "+ das after the filin# of the #raft char#e, the petitionerissued Office Order No. 5 reassi#nin# respondents to#ether !ith De -esus fro' theoffices the then held to the Office of the $d'inistrator. Supposedl, the reassi#nedofficers !ere to act as a core #roup of a 678$ as; 'ove'ent of an e'ploee fro' one or#ani3ational unit to anotherin the sa'e depart'ent or a#enc !hich does not involve a reduction in ran;, status orsalar. If reassi#n'ent is !ithout the consent of the e'ploee bein# reassi#ned it shallbe allo!ed onl for a 'aAi'u' period of one ear. Reassi#n'ent is presu'ed to bere#ular and 'ade in the interest of public service unless proven other!ise or if itconstitutes constructive dis'issal.

On the basis thereof, althou#h the reassi#n'ent is presu'ed re#ular and 'ade in theinterest of public service, there is an iota of ) -)&tattendant to the herein caseevidenced b the fact that the reassi#n'ent !as issued barel ten das after the

1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt8

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

2/7

reassi#ned officials filed a cri'inal co'plaint a#ainst the $d'inistrator for violation ofthe $nti9:raft and Corrupt Practices $ct. Moreover, !hile the reassi#ned officials usedto head their specific depart'ents, bein# Deput $d'inistrators at that, theirreassi#n'ent resulted to a &'&(ut&o( o- t&% %s+$t& %)(8s. o appl the rulin#of the Court of $ppeals in the Fernandezcase to the herein case, it is clear that there!as such a di'inution in ran; because the reassi#n'ent order @did not state an

ustifiable reason for the reassi#n'ent, has no specificit as to the ti'e, functions,duties and responsibilities, 'a;in# it a floatin# assi#n'ent, and re'oves fro' theirsupervision e'ploees !ho are part of their staff and subordinates.@ $nd 'orei'portantl, the recent develop'ent !herein the reassi#ned officials !ere directed todesist fro' perfor'in# and eAercisin# the functions of their respective positionsconstituted $o(st%u$t& &s'&ss)* A A A.

A A A %E'phasis supplied.&

On $pril "+, (***, the respondents filed before the Office of the O'buds'an an)'&(&st%)t& $o'+*)&(tfor Oppression and 1arass'ent a#ainst the petitioner andthe OICs. he petitioner dul filed a counter9affidavit raisin# as defense his authorit toter'inate the respondents0 e'plo'ent and foru' shoppin#. he petitioner denied as!ell that force and inti'idation !ere used in ta;in# over the respondentsF offices.

he Office of the O'buds'an resolved the ad'inistrative case throu#h a decisiondated -ul ", (***."*he O'buds'an s&st -%o' %u*&(g o( t )*&&t o- t%s+o((ts: %)ss&g('(ts, )$8(o7*g&(g t +%&')% ;u%&s&$t&o( o- t CSCo% t &ssu

he CSC is the central personnel a#enc of the #overn'ent and as such it is the Officetas;ed !ith the dut of renderin# opinions and rulin#s

on all personnel and other civil service 'atters !hich shall be bindin# on all heads ofdepart'ents, offices and a#encies. A A A.

1ence, t&s O--&$ $)( )%* )%%og)t u(to &ts*- t t)s8 o- %so*&(g t s)&&ssu. $s stated b the Supre'e Court, the doctrine of pri'ar urisdiction does not!arrant a court to arro#ate unto itself the authorit to resolve a controvers theurisdiction over !hich is initiall lod#ed !ith an ad'inistrative bod of specialco'petence. A A A %E'phasis supplied.&

but at the sa'e ti'e denied !ei#ht to the CSC le#al opinion, contendin# that it !asUA A'&(&st%)to% )s (o )uto%&t u(% t *)7 to &ssut ?ust&o( %)ss&g('(t o%%, and ordered the respondents0 reinstate'ent.

he petitioner responded b filin# a 'otion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No.**")( and thus avoided the i'ple'entation of the respondents0 reinstate'ent.

In the ad'inistrative case before the O'buds'an, the respondents 'oved for thereconsideration of the O'buds'anFs (? -ul (*** decision,

attachin# to their 'otion a cop of CSC Resolution No. **")(. Nevertheless, the

O'buds'an denied the reGuested reconsideration,"(stressin# that CSC ResolutionNo. **")( !as not et final in vie! of the petitioner0s pendin# 'otion forreconsideration. he pertinent part of the O'buds'an resolution of denial reads

7hile it is true that the CSC en banc thru the aforecited resolution appears to haveaffir'ed the earlier opinion of $ssistant Co''issioner $DE6IN$ 4. S$RMIENO thatthe reassi#n'ent of the co'plainants b respondent REHES is not in order, the sa'eis (ot t -&()*considerin# the ti'el filin# before the said Co''ission of a Motion forReconsideration b respondent REHES on $u#ust (, (*** A A A. Certainl, this is (ott -&()* )( $)tgo%&$)* %u*&(g 7&$ t&s O--&$ ) &( '&( 7( &t &ssu t?ust&o( DECISION. %E'phasis supplied.&

he sa'e order eApressed that under Section ), Rule III of the O'buds'an Rules, the

O'buds'an0s -ul (?, (*** decision thus affir'ed should no! be final andunappealable.

he CSC en bancdenied the petitionerFs 'otion for reconsideration of Resolution No.**")( throu#h CSC Resolution No. **(+/?"+dated October "), (***, and thusaffir'ed the ille#alit of the reassi#n'ents and the reassi#n'ent order.

On October +", (***, the respondents challen#ed the O'buds'anFs rulin#s throu#h apetition for revie!"/filed !ith the C$, citin# a'on# others the O'buds'an0s #raveabuse of discretion in issuin# its rulin#s.

2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt14

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

3/7

he C$ ruled in the respondents0 favor in its decision of Nove'ber (), (**" and thusreversed the assailed O'buds'an0s -ul (?, (*** decision."2he appellate courtobserved that the @O'buds'an did not decide the BrespondentsF co'plaint for1arass'ent and Oppression on its 'erits, but relied on the non9finalit of theResolution of the Civil Service Co''ission.

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

4/7

#&(&(gs o- -)$t t O--&$ o- t O'us')( 7( su++o%t sust)(t&)*&($ )% $o($*us&. A( o%%, &%$t& o% $&s&o( &'+os&(g t +()*t o-+u*&$ $(su% o% %+%&')(, sus+(s&o( o- (ot 'o% t)( o( 'o(ts s)*)%s)** -&()* )( u()++)*)*.(*%e'phasis supplied&.

Notabl, eAoneration is not 'entioned in Section () as final and unappealable.1o!ever, its inclusion is i'plicit for, as !e held in Barata v. balos!("if a sentence ofcensure, repri'and and a one9'onth suspension is considered final and unappealable,so should eAoneration.((

he clear i'port of Section ), Rule III of the O'buds'an Rules is to den theco'plainant in an ad'inistrative co'plaint the ri#ht to appeal !here the O'buds'anhas eAonerated the respondent of the ad'inistrative char#e, as in this case. heco'plainant, therefore, is not entitled to an corrective recourse, !hether b 'otion forreconsideration in the Office of the O'buds'an, or b appeal to the courts, to effect areversal of the eAoneration. Onl the respondent is #ranted the ri#ht to appeal but onlin case he is found liable and the penalt i'posed is hi#her than public censure,repri'and, one9'onth suspension or fine a eGuivalent to one 'onth salar.

he absence of an statutor ri#ht to appeal the eAoneration of the respondent in anad'inistrative case does not 'ean, ho!ever, that the co'plainant is left !ithabsolutel no re'ed. Over and above our statutes is the Constitution !hose Section ",$rticle VIII e'po!ers the courts of ustice to deter'ine !hether or not there has been a#rave abuse of discretion a'ountin# to lac; or eAcess of urisdiction on the part of anbranch or instru'entalit of the :overn'ent. his is an overridin# authorit that cutsacross all branches and instru'entalities of #overn'ent and is i'ple'ented throu#hthe petition for certiorarithat Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides. $ petition forcertiorari is appropriate !hen a tribunal, clothed !ith udicial or Guasi9udicial authorit,acted !ithout urisdiction %i.e., !ithout the appropriate le#al po!er to resolve a case&, orin eAcess of urisdiction %i.e., althou#h clothed !ith the appropriate po!er to resolve acase, it oversteps its authorit as deter'ined b la!, or that it co''itted #rave abuseof its discretion b actin# either outside the conte'plation of the la! or in a capricious,

!hi'sical, arbitrar or despotic 'anner eGuivalent to lac; of urisdiction&.(+he Rules ofCourt and its provisions and urisprudence on !rits of certiorarifull appl to the Officeof the O'buds'an as these Rules are suppletor to the O'buds'an0s Rules.(/heRules of Court are also the applicable rules in procedural 'atters on recourses to thecourts and hence, are the rules the parties have to contend !ith in #oin# to the C$.

In the present case, the respondents did not file a Rule 52 petition for certiorari, andinstead filed a petition for revie! under Rule /+ of the Rules of Court. $ Rule /+ petitionfor revie! is effectivel an appeal to the C$ that R$ 5))* and the O'buds'an Rulesdo not allo! in an eAoneration situation as above discussed. he respondents0 petitionfor revie!, ho!ever, addressed the #rave abuse of discretion that the O'buds'an

co''itted in eAoneratin# the present petitioner. his appeal to our overridin#constitutional dut and the results of our o!n eAa'ination of the petition co'pel us toeAercise our liberalit in applin# the Rules of Court and to reco#ni3e that the recourse'ade to the C$ had the effect of a Rule 52 petition. 7e consider, therefore, therespondents0 petition before the C$ as properl filed.

"#e $rave buse of Discretion

). E--$t o- G%) Aus o- D&s$%t&o(

7e full support the findin# of the C$ that #rave abuse of discretion attended theO'buds'an0s decision. $s discussed above, #rave abuse of discretion is acircu'stance beond the le#al error co''itted b a decision9'a;in# a#enc or entitin the eAercise of its urisdiction= this circu'stance affects even the authorit to renderud#'ent. :rave abuse of discretion shares this effect !ith such #rounds as the lac; ofsubstantial supportin# evidence,(2and the failure to act in conte'plation of la!,(5a'on# others.

In the absence of an authorit to ta;e co#ni3ance of a case and to render a decision,an resultin# decision is necessaril null and void. In turn, a null decision, b its vernature, cannot beco'e final and can be i'pu#ned at an ti'e.()In the conteAt of theO'buds'an operations, a void decision cannot tri##er the application of Section ),Rule III of the O'buds'an Rules.

his is the step9b9step flo! that arises fro' a findin# of #rave abuse of discretion, inrelation !ith the finalit and uappealabilit of an O'buds'an decision involvin# thepenalties o eAoneration, censure, repri'and, and suspension for not 'ore than one'onth.

b. he :rave $buse of Discretion in the ConteAt of the Case

he factual startin# point in the consideration of this case is the propriet of thereassi#n'ents that the petitioner, as the 678$ $d'inistrator, ordered= this eventtri##ered the dispute that is no! before us. he reassi#n'ents, alle#ed to be !ithoutle#al basis and arbitrar, led to the hi#hhanded i'ple'entation that the respondentsalso co'plained about, and eventuall to the CSC rulin#s that the respondents !ereconstructivel dis'issed. he led also to the char#e of harass'ent and oppressionfiled a#ainst the petitioner, !hich char#e the O'buds'an dis'issed. his dis'issal,found b the C$ to be attended b #rave abuse of discretion, is the pri'ar factual andle#al issue !e have to resolve in passin# upon the propriet of the actions of theO'buds'an and the C$ in the case.

4

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt27

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

5/7

$s the CSC and O'buds'an cases developed, the validit of the reassi#n'ents !asthe issue presented before CSC= the latter had the authorit to declare thereassi#n'ents invalid but had no authorit to penali3e the petitioner for his acts. hecharacter of the petitioner0s actions, alle#ed to be harass'ents and to be oppressive,!ere brou#ht to the O'buds'an for ad'inistrative sanctions a#ainst the petitioner= it!as the O'buds'an !ho had the authorit to penali3e the petitioner for his actions

a#ainst the respondents.

8nder this clear de'arcation, neither the CSC nor the O'buds'an intruded into eachother0s urisdictional do'ain and no foru' shoppin# issue could have succeededbecause of si'ultaneous recourses to these a#encies. 7hile both entities had toeAa'ine and to rule on the sa'e set of facts, the did so for different purposes and fordifferent resultin# actions.

he CSC too; the #raft char#es the respondents brou#ht a#ainst the petitioner intoaccount, but this !as for purposes of loo;in# at the 'otive behind the reassi#n'entsand of vie!in# the petitioner0s acts in their totalit. he sa'e is true in vie!in# the'anner of the i'ple'entation of the reassi#n'ents. 6ar#el, ho!ever, the CSC basedits rulin# on a le#al point > that the 678$ 4oard, not the 678$ $d'inistrator, can order

reassi#n'ents. hus, the CSC ruled that the reassi#n'ents constituted constructivedis'issal.

On the other hand, the O'buds'an, also relin# on the events that transpired, shouldhave ud#ed the petitioner0s actions 'ainl on the basis of !hether the constitutedacts of harass'ent and oppression. In 'a;in# this deter'ination, the O'buds'ancould not have escaped considerin# the validit of the reassi#n'ents 'ade > adeter'ination that is pri'aril and authoritativel for the CSC to 'a;e. he char#e ofharass'ent and oppression !ould have no basis if the reassi#n'ents !ere in fact validas the !ere alle#ed to be the 'ain acts of harass'ent and oppression that drove theco''ission of the petitioner0s other si'ilarl9'otivated acts. In this sense, the validitof the reassi#n'ents 'ust necessaril have to be deter'ined first as a prior Guestionbefore the full consideration of the eAistence of harass'ent or oppression could ta;e

place. Stated other!ise, an findin# of harass'ent and oppression, or their absence,rendered !ithout an definitive rulin# on the validit of the reassi#n'ents !ouldnecessaril be pre'ature. he findin# !ould also suffer fro' the lac; of factual andle#al bases.

7e note that the Office of the O'buds'an dul noted in its decision that the CSC haspri'ar urisdiction over the issue of the reassi#n'ents0 validit, declarin# that it @canhardl arro#ate unto itself the tas; of resolvin# the said issue.@ his is a correct readin#of the la! as the CSC is the central personnel a#enc of the #overn'ent !hosepo!ers eAtend to all branches, subdivisions, instru'entalities, and a#encies of the:overn'ent, includin# #overn'ent9o!ned or controlled corporations !ith ori#inal

charters.(?Constitutionall, the CSC has the po!er and authorit to ad'inister andenforce the constitutional and statutor provisions on the 'erit sste'= pro'ul#atepolicies, standards, and #uidelines for the civil service= subect to certain eAceptions,approve all appoint'ents, !hether ori#inal or pro'otional, to positions in the civilservice= hear and decide ad'inistrative disciplinar cases instituted directl !ith it= andperfor' such other functions that properl belon# to a central personnel a#enc.(

Pursuant to these po!ers, the CSC has the authorit to deter'ine the validit of theappoint'ents and 'ove'ents of civil service personnel.

$lon# the !a, ho!ever, the O'buds'an0s decision diver#ed fro' its basic le#alpre'ise !hen it refused to appl the rule it had ac;no!led#ed > that the CSC is the@ad'inistrative bod of special co'petence@ to decide on the validit of thereassi#n'ents= it refused to accord due respect to the CSC opinion and, later, to theCSC Resolution No. **")( on the fli's #round that these !ere not et f inal andconclusive. On the stren#th of this @non9finalit@ ar#u'ent, the O'buds'an proceededto declare the reassi#n'ents presu'ptivel re#ular and, f indin# insufficient evidence offorce and inti'idation in the i'ple'entation of the reassi#n'ents b the petitioner andthe OICs, sustained the invalid reassi#n'ents and their co'ple'entar acts. heeffect, of course, !as the eAoneration of the petitioner and his co9defendants of the

ad'inistrative char#e of oppression and harass'ent. o the respondents and to the C$as !ell, the eAoneration !as attended b #rave abuse of discretion.

c. Pre'aturit and $rbitrariness

$fter due consideration reflected in the discussions belo!, !e find the O'buds'an0sdecision fatall fla!ed for pre'aturit and arbitrariness, particularl for its lac; of le#aland factual bases.

$s discussed above, a CSC deter'ination of the validit of the reassi#n'ents is arulin# that the O'buds'an 'ust consider in reachin# its o!n conclusion on !hetherthe reassi#n'ents and their i'ple'entation !ere attended b harass'ent or

oppression. 7ith the CSC rulin#s dul pleaded, the O'buds'an should have accordedthese rulin#s due respect and reco#nition. If these rulin#s had not attained finalitbecause of a properl filed 'otion for reconsideration, the O'buds'an should have atleast !aited so that its o!n rulin# on the alle#ations of harass'ent and oppression!ould be #rounded on the findin#s of the #overn'ental a#enc !ith the pri'arauthorit to resolve the validit of the reassi#n'ents.

$n alternative course of action for the O'buds'an to ensure that his decision !ouldhave le#al and factual bases and !ould not be tainted !ith arbitrariness or abuse ofdiscretion, !ould have been to underta;e its o!n eAa'ination of these reassi#n'entsfro' the perspective of harass'ent and oppression, and to 'a;e its o!n findin#s onthe validit of the petitioner0s actions. It should have eAplained in clear ter's and on the

5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_154652_2009.html#fnt29

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

6/7

basis of substantial evidence on record !h no harass'ent or oppression attended thereassi#'ents and their i'ple'entation. :iven the dul9pleaded CSC rulin#s, the Officeof the O'buds'an should have eAplained !h it did not need the CSC0spronounce'ents in 'a;in# its deter'ination, or if needed, !h the should not befollo!ed, statin# clearl !hat eAactl !as !ron# !ith the CSCFs reasonin# and !h,contrar to the CSC0s pronounce'ent, the reassi#n'ents !ere in fact valid and re#ular.

8nfortunatel, no such deter'ination !as ever 'ade. Instead, the Office of theO'buds'an si'pl relied on the presu'ption of re#ularit in the perfor'ance of dutthat it clai'ed the petitioner enoed, and fro' this pre'ise, ruled that no harass'entor oppression transpired in the absence of force or inti'idation that attended thei'ple'entation of the reassi#n'ents.

$s a #eneral rule, @official acts@ eno the presu'ption of re#ularit, and thepresu'ption 'a be overthro!n onl b evidence to the contrar.+*7hen an act isofficial, a presu'ption of re#ularit eAists because of the assu'ption that the la! tellsthe official !hat his duties are and that he dischar#ed these duties accordin#l. 4ut notall acts of public officers are @official acts,@ i.e., acts specified b la! as an official dutor as a function attached to a public position, and the presu'ption does not appl !hen

an official0s acts are not !ithin the duties specified b la!,+"particularl !hen his actsproperl pertain or belon# to another entit, a#enc, or public official.

In the present case, the CSC had spo;en b !a of an en banc resolution, no less, thatthe petitioner 678$ $d'inistrator0s reassi#n'ent orders !ere ille#al because, b la!,the authorit to reassi#n officers and e'ploees of the 678$ lies !ith the 678$4oard= the 678$ $d'inistrator0s authorit is 'erel to reco''end a reassi#n'ent tothe 4oard.

8/11/2019 08. Reyes v. Belisarion (2009)

7/7

Order No. (( %Civil Service 6a!&, section (( %n& !ith suspension for siA %5& 'onthsand one %"& da to one %"& ear.@

7e full a#ree that the reassi#n'ents the petitioner ordered !ere done in bad faitha'ountin# to constructive dis'issal and abuse of authorit. 7e affir' as !ell the C$0srulin# findin# that petitioner should be liable for oppression a#ainst the respondents.

d. he $ppropriate Penalt

Oppression is characteri3ed as a #rave offense under Sec. 2(%$&%"/&+5of the 8nifor'Rules on $d'inistrative Cases in the Civil Service+)and Sec. ((%n&+?of the RulesI'ple'entin# 4oo; V of EAecutive Order No. (( and Other Pertinent Civil Service6a!s,+penali3ed !ith suspension of 5 'onths and " da to " ear on the firstoffense.%avvp#i%

Considerin# that the oppression found !as not a si'ple one, but !as in response tothe respondents0 filin# of an anti9#raft co'plaint a#ainst the petitioner, the penalt !eshould i'pose should reflect the #raft9related ori#in of this case and should be in the

'aAi'u' de#ree. ConseGuentl, !e 'odif the C$ decision b increasin# the penaltto suspension for one %"& ear, in lieu of the siA %5& 'onths and one %"& da that theappellate court i'posed. If the petitioner is no lon#er in the service, then thesuspension should auto'aticall ta;e the for' of a fine eGuivalent to the petitioner0sone9ear salar at the ti'e of his separation fro' the service.

71ERE