View full case

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. HENRY A. SOJOR

FACTS:

This case involves the disciplinary jurisdiction over the President of the Central Visayas Polytechnic College (CVPC). Respondent Sojor was appointed as president of CVPC in 1991. In 1997, Republic Act No. 8292 was enacted, mandating the formation of a Board of Trustees (BOT) as the governing body in state colleges. The BOT of CVPC appointed respondent as president with a four-year term. In 2004, CVPC was converted into the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) and a Board of Regents (BOR) replaced the BOT. Three administrative cases were filed against respondent by CVPC faculty members before the CSC Regional Office (CSC-RO). Respondent moved to dismiss the complaints on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The CSC-RO denied his motion, and respondent was formally charged with three administrative cases. Respondent appealed to the CSC, raising the same arguments, but the CSC dismissed his appeal and authorized the regional office to proceed with the investigation. Respondent was also preventively suspended for 90 days. The Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) argues that since the President of a state college is appointed by the Board of Regents/Trustees, the President of CVPC is not a presidential appointee and is within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commission. Sojor filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission, but it was denied. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the CSC acted without jurisdiction and encroached upon CVPC's academic freedom. The CA ruled in favor of Sojor, annulling the CSC resolutions and permanently enjoining the CSC from proceeding with the administrative investigation. The CA held that R.A. No. 8292 did not divest the Board of Trustees of its power to discipline and remove employees. The CSC now appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has jurisdiction over all civil service positions in the government service, including career and non-career service positions.

  2. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions involving third level officials who are not presidential appointees.

  3. Whether the CSC has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions against Civil Service officials and employees that were not acted upon by the agencies.

  4. Whether the CSC has jurisdiction over requests for the transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard by Civil Service Regional Offices.

  5. Whether the CSC has jurisdiction over appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension.

  6. Whether the CSC has jurisdiction over other actions or requests arising from the enumerated cases.

  7. Whether or not the Board of Regents (BOR) of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) has exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline and removal of its employees and officials.

  8. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has jurisdiction over the discipline of non-career civil servants.

  9. Whether or not the principle of academic freedom can be invoked to bar the imposition of disciplinary actions for violations of civil service laws and rules.

  10. Whether or not the doctrine of academic freedom allows a school official to violate civil service rules.

  11. Whether or not the re-appointment of the respondent as university president serves as a condonation of the alleged acts imputed to him.

RULING:

  1. Yes. The CSC has been granted by the Constitution and the Administrative Code jurisdiction over all civil service positions in the government service, whether career or non-career. The specific jurisdiction of the CSC, as spelled out in its rules, did not depart from the general jurisdiction granted to it by law. The CSC has jurisdiction over administrative cases, contested appointments, and decisions and actions of its offices and attached agencies. The CSC Proper has jurisdiction over disciplinary cases, decisions of regional offices, decisions of heads of departments and agencies, complaints against CSC personnel, and complaints against third-level officials who are not presidential appointees.

  2. The CSC has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions involving third level officials who are not presidential appointees.

  3. The CSC has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions against Civil Service officials and employees that were not acted upon by the agencies.

  4. The CSC has jurisdiction over requests for the transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard by Civil Service Regional Offices.

  5. The CSC has jurisdiction over appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension.

  6. The CSC has jurisdiction over other actions or requests arising from the enumerated cases.

  7. The BOR of NORSU does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline and removal of its employees and officials. While the BOR is given the power to discipline its employees and officials by law, it is not exclusive unless it is proven that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction. The CSC has jurisdiction over the discipline of all members of the civil service, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, unless otherwise provided by law.

  8. The CSC has jurisdiction over the discipline of non-career civil servants. All civil service officials and employees, regardless of their career status, are within the jurisdiction of the CSC. The appellate jurisdiction of the CSC in administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of penalties or dismissal from office is provided for in the Civil Service Law.

  9. The principle of academic freedom cannot be invoked to bar the imposition of disciplinary actions for violations of civil service laws and rules. While academic institutions and personnel are granted wide latitude of action under academic freedom, this principle does not cover violations of civil service laws and rules. In this case, the administrative complaints filed against the respondent involve grave offenses under civil service rules, which are punishable with suspension or dismissal.

  10. The doctrine of academic freedom does not grant an institution the authority to violate civil service rules. The respondent, as a member of the civil service, may not justify his actions under the principle of academic freedom. Hence, school officials cannot commit grave offenses under civil service rules.

  11. The principle of condonation does not apply to the present circumstances. The re-appointment of the respondent as university president does not serve as a condonation of the alleged acts imputed to him. Unlike elective officials, appointed officials cannot claim that a re-appointment supersedes a pending administrative case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over all civil service positions in the government service, whether career or non-career.

  • The jurisdiction of the CSC is granted by the Constitution and the Administrative Code.

  • The CSC's jurisdiction is specified in its rules and includes administrative cases, contested appointments, and decisions and actions of its offices and attached agencies.

  • The CSC Proper has jurisdiction over disciplinary cases, decisions of regional offices, decisions of heads of departments and agencies, complaints against CSC personnel, and complaints against third-level officials who are not presidential appointees.

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions involving third level officials who are not presidential appointees.

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over complaints and petitions against Civil Service officials and employees that were not acted upon by the agencies.

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over requests for the transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard by Civil Service Regional Offices.

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension.

  • The CSC has jurisdiction over other actions or requests arising from the enumerated cases.

  • The jurisdiction of government bodies to hear and decide cases involving specific matters is presumed to be exclusive unless another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.

  • All members of the civil service, regardless of their career status, are within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

  • Government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters fall within the scope of the civil service, and administrative cases involving the discipline of their employees come under the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

  • Academic institutions and personnel have the freedom to determine methods of teaching and admission policies, but this does not extend to violations of civil service laws and rules.

  • Academic freedom does not give an institution the unbridled authority to violate civil service rules.

  • A re-appointment to a non-career position does not serve as condonation of alleged acts imputed to an official.

  • The principle of vox populi est suprema lex only applies to re-election of public officials, not to the re-appointment of appointed officials.