G.R. No. 198682 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Mayor Francisco Adalim is DENIED. Accordingly, CSC Resolution No. 09-0262 dated February 24, 2009 which directed Mayor Adalim to reinstate Tani[ñ]as, et al. to their respective positions and pay their salaries and benefits effective August 2005 up to their actual reinstatement, STANDS with modification that the ruling on reinstatement is not applicable to Ma. Irma D. Daiz who died on August 31, 2007 and Isidro Busa who retired on September 14, 2008. They are, however, still entitled to the salaries and benefits from August 2005 up to the termination of their relation with the Municipal Government of Taft. The Motion for Execution of Tani[ñ]as, et al. is GRANTED. Accordingly, Mayor Francisco Adalim is directed to implement the said decision within five (5) days from receipt hereof, otherwise, he may be cited for contempt and be held liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service or Neglect of Duty. [11] Accordingly, Adalim filed a petition for review with the CA. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its 28 January 2011 Decision, the CA dismissed Adalims petition for want of merit and affirmed both Resolution Nos. 09-0262 and 09-1197 of the CSC. The CA emphasized that: x x x this case involves an administrative proceeding, hence, the technical rules of procedure under the Rules of Court need not be strictly applied pursuant to Section 3, Rule 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provides: Section 3. Technical Rules in Administrative Investigations. - Administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. [12] Hence, this petition. The Issues Adalim seeks a reversal and assigns the following errors: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL OF [RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES] WITH THE CSC DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED OUT OF TIME OR AFTER MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THEIR RECEIPT OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL OF [RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES] WITH THE RESPONDENT CSC DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL FEE WAS NOT PAID UNTIL OCTOBER 27, 2007 OR ELEVEN (11) MONTHS AFTER THEIR RECEIPT OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER. WORSE, THE APPEAL FEE WAS PAID ON THE VERY SAME DAY WHEN THE CSC REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 8 PROMULGATED ITS DECISION. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CSC DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER ADMITTED ISSUES NOT PRESENTED OR ALLEGED IN THE PLEADINGS. IV. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL OF [RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES] WITH THE CSC WHEN IT DECREED: HOWEVER, THE ISSUE ON WHO IS THE DULY ELECTED MAYOR DURING THE PERIOD WHEN TANIÑAS, ET. AL. WERE