View full case

DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES v. ROSSANO J. MOJICA

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, Rossano A. Mojica, was a stock clerk at Duty Free Philippines (DFP) and was accused of neglect of duty, causing damage to or loss of materials, assets, and property of DFP. The Discipline Committee of DFP rendered a decision on November 28, 1997, finding Mojica guilty and considered him forcibly resigned from the service with forfeiture of certain benefits. Mojica filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mojica, declaring his dismissal as illegal and ordering DFP to reinstate him and pay back wages and attorney's fees. The NLRC reversed the arbiter's ruling, finding the dismissal valid. Mojica filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor and held that there was no sufficient evidence to prove his guilt. However, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal rests with the Civil Service Commission, as Mojica is a civil service employee. The Court ruled that the labor arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the complaint, and dismissed the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the labor arbiter and the NLRC erred in taking cognizance of the complaint for illegal dismissal.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the labor arbiter.

RULING:

  1. The labor arbiter and the NLRC erred in taking cognizance of the complaint for illegal dismissal as jurisdiction over the complaint is lodged with the Civil Service Commission. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in sustaining the labor arbiter. Therefore, the complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Civil service employees are subject to the Civil Service rules and regulations, and any complaints or grievances should be addressed through the Civil Service Commission.

  • Jurisdiction over complaints for illegal dismissal of civil service employees lies with the Civil Service Commission, not the NLRC or the labor authorities.

  • Controversies concerning the relations of the employee with the management of government-owned or controlled corporations should be resolved by the Civil Service Commission.