G.R. No. 208224 - DR. JOSEPH L. MALIXI, DR. EMELITA Q. FIRMACION, MARIETTA MENDOZA, AURORA AGUSTIN, NORA AGUILAR, MA. THERESA M. BEFETEL, AND MYRNA NISAY, VS. DR. GLORY V. BALTAZAR.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the complaint of Dr. Joseph L. Malixi, Dr. Emelita Q. Firmacion, Marietta Mendoza, Aurora Agustin, Nora Aguilar, Ma. Theresa M. Befetel and Myrna Nisay against Dr. Glory V. Baltazar for Dishonesty; Misconduct; Oppression; Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules or Reasonable Office Regulations; and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Being Notoriously Undesirable is hereby DISMISSED for violation of the rule against forum-shopping. [38] (Emphasis in the original) Petitioners moved for reconsideration and argued that the letter before the Department of Health was simply a request to meet the Secretary, and not a Complaint. Furthermore, the letter before the Department of Health and the Complaint before the Civil Service Commission did not contain the same parties or seek the same relief. [39] On July 17, 2012, the Civil Service Commission promulgated a Resolution [40] denying the Motion for Reconsideration. It held that it was the Department of Health that considered petitioners' letter as their complaint, and not the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, the Department of Health already exercised jurisdiction over the case when it required Dr. Baltazar to comment on the letter-complaint. [41] Petitioners elevated the case before the Court of Appeals. On January 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a Minute Resolution, [42] dismissing the appeal: The petition is DISMISSED in view of the following: the dates when the assailed Decision was received and when [a Motion for Reconsideration] thereto was filed are not indicated; the attached October 17, 2011 Decision and July 17, 2012 Resolution are mere photocopies; petitioner's counsel's [Mandatory Continuing Legal Education] date of compliance is not indicated; and there are no proofs of competent evidence of identities. [43] Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its July 16, 2013 Minute Resolution. [44] On September 4, 2013, petitioners filed a Petition for Review [45] against Dr. Baltazar before this Court. They pray for the reversal of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and of the Decision and Resolution of the Civil Service Commission. [46] Petitioners maintain that they indicated the important dates in their appeal before the Court of Appeals and that they attached certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. [47] However, they admit that they failed to indicate the date of their counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance and to provide proof of "competent evidence of identities." [48] Petitioners also deny that they committed forum shopping. The alleged Complaint sent to the Department of Health was a mere letter stating the employees' grievances and objections to the illegalities and violations committed by respondent. It was a mere request for the Department of Health Secretary to tackle the issues and investigate the concerns in the hospital's manag