G.R. No. 160846 - BENJAMIN B. GERONGA, vs. HON. EDUARDO VARELA, as City Mayor of Cadiz City.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Edwin Nuyad, Nick Ambos and [petitioner] is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mayor Eduardo G. Varela is directed to reinstate Nuyad, Ambos and [petitioner] to their former positions or, if no longer available, to comparable positions. [14] Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [15] questioning the order to reinstate Nuyad, Ambos and petitioner. Respondent pointed out that petitioner cannot be reinstated anymore because the latter failed to appeal from his dismissal in Administrative Case No. 96-04, which consequently became final and executory. The CSC partly granted the Motion for Reconsideration of respondent in Resolution No. 992107, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Mayor Eduardo G. Varela is partly granted. His prayer for the reversal of CSC Resolution No. 990717 dated March 25, 1999 is hereby denied. However, his request for the non-reinstatement of [petitioner] in view of the finality of the decision in Administrative Case No. 96-04, finding [petitioner] guilty of Grave Misconduct for which he was meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service is granted. Accordingly, CSC Resolution No. 990717 dated March 25, 1999 is hereby modified insofar as the non-reinstatement of [petitioner] is concerned. In all other matters, the said resolution stands. [16] (Emphasis supplied.) Both petitioner and respondent filed Motions for Reconsideration [17] but the CSC denied the same in Resolution No. 000715. [18] They filed with the CA separate Petitions for Review, [19] which were later consolidated. [20] In the October 15, 2002 Joint Decision [21] assailed herein, the CA dismissed both petitions and affirmed CSC Resolutions No. 992107 and No. 000715. Only petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration [22] which the CA denied in its October 1, 2003 Resolution. [23] Petitioner is now before this Court, seeking resolution of the following issues: Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner under Memorandum Order No. 98-V-05 constitutes a denial of his constitutional right to due process; Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process under the Resolution/Recommendation of the City Legal Officer in Adm. Case No. 96-04 as adopted in toto by the City Mayor; Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner became final for failure to appeal; Whether or not the Civil Service Commission acted properly and within the bounds of its own rules and regulations in entertaining the motion for reconsideration of Mayor Varela from its Resolution No. 990714 dated March 25, 1999; and Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of the petitioner. [24] We shall first resolve the fourth issue whether the CSC may entertain respondent's motion for reconsideration of its decision exonerating petitioner. Petitioner points out that after ordering his exoneration under Resolution No. 990717, the CSC could no longer entertain a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent who is not even a proper