View full case

MAYOR RHUSTOM L. DAGADAG v. MICHAEL C. TONGNAWA

FACTS:

Petitioner, Mayor Rhustom L. Dagadag, issued a memorandum to respondents, Michael Tongnawa and Antonio Gammod, ordering them to explain within 72 hours for acts unbecoming of public servants and failure to perform their duties. Petitioner created a Municipal Grievance Committee to investigate the charges against respondents. After investigation, the Committee found respondents liable for insubordination, non-performance of duties, and absences without official leaves (AWOL). Petitioner issued an order suspending respondents from their positions for two months. Respondents appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) claiming their right to due process was violated. While their appeal was pending, petitioner dropped respondents from the roll of employees due to unauthorized absences. The CSC affirmed petitioner's order of suspension but reversed the order of separation. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, finding irregularities in the conduct of the Grievance Committee hearing and ruling that there was no factual basis for the suspension. The Court of Appeals also held that there was no valid termination of respondents' services since the requirement of continuous absences was not met.

ISSUES:

  1. Who may appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals?

  2. Is the CSC a real party in interest to contest the assailed decision?

  3. Is the mayor of Tanudan a real party in interest to interpose an appeal?

  4. Whether or not the appointing authority has the right to contest the disapproval of an appointment by the Civil Service Commission (CSC)

  5. Whether or not a municipal mayor has the legal personality to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in administrative cases involving municipal officials and employees

  6. Whether or not the petitioner, who is no longer the mayor at the time of filing the petition, has the legal personality to pursue the appeal

RULING:

  1. The CSC and the mayor of Tanudan are both real parties in interest and can contest the Decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court.

  2. The CSC is a real party in interest as it has been mandated by the Constitution to preserve and safeguard the integrity of the civil service system. Any transgression by the respondents of the CSC rules and regulations will adversely affect its integrity.

  3. The mayor of Tanudan is a real party in interest because he has the power to appoint officials and employees of his municipality. Both respondents were appointed by the mayor during his incumbency. The mayor, being the appointing authority, has the right to challenge the CSC's disapproval of the appointment of his appointee.

  4. Yes, the appointing authority has the right to contest the disapproval of an appointment by the CSC. The appointing authority can defend its appointment and challenge the reasons for its disapproval.

  5. Yes, a municipal mayor has the legal personality to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in administrative cases involving municipal officials and employees. The mayor possesses the power to appoint and remove municipal officials and employees, and thus has an interest in challenging adverse rulings against his orders.

  6. No, the petitioner, who is no longer the mayor at the time of filing the petition, has lost his legal personality to pursue the appeal. The action may only be continued and maintained by the successor if there is a substantial need to do so.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or one entitled to the avails of the suit.

  • The party adversely affected by a decision is a real party in interest.

  • The municipal mayor, being the appointing authority, is a real party in interest to challenge the CSC's disapproval of an appointment. The mayor has the power to exercise judgment and discretion in the appointment process.

  • The appointing authority has the right to contest the disapproval of an appointment by the CSC.

  • A municipal mayor has the legal personality to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in administrative cases involving municipal officials and employees, given the mayor's power to appoint and remove them.

  • When a public officer ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by his successor if there is a substantial need to do so. If the successor fails to pursue the appeal or action, it should be dismissed.