G.R. No. 192074 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, VS. AURORA A. SALVAÑA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, rules of procedure can apply to cases pending at the time of their enactment. In fact, statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be applied on actions undetermined at the time of their effectivity. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. [85] (Emphasis supplied) Remedial rights are those rights granted by remedial or procedural laws. These are rights that only operate to further the rules of procedure or to confirm vested rights. As such, the retroactive application of remedial rights will not adversely affect the vested rights of any person. Considering that the right to appeal is a right remedial in nature, we find that Section 4, paragraph (k), Rule I of the RACCS applies in this case. Petitioner, therefore, had the right to appeal the decision of the Civil Service Commission that modified its original decision of dismissal. Recent decisions implied the retroactive application of this rule. While the right of government parties to appeal was not an issue, this court gave due course to the appeals filed by government agencies before the promulgation of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. In Civil Service Commission v. Clave, [86] the Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) found one of its employees, Aurora M. Clave, guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the GSISs findings. The Court of Appeals, however, while affirming the Civil Service Commission, reduced the penalty. Both the GSIS and the Civil Service Commission were given standing to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals. In GSIS v. Chua , [87] the GSIS dismissed Heidi R. Chua for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the GSIS, but the Court of Appeals, while affirming the findings of the Commission, modified the penalty to simple misconduct. The GSIS was then allowed to bring an appeal of the modification of the penalty with this court. Thus, we now hold that the parties adversely affected by a decision in an administrative case who may appeal shall include the disciplining authority whose decision dismissing the employee was either overturned or modified by the Civil Service Commission. The offense committed was less serious dishonesty, not simple dishonesty Dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity . . . . [88] Since the utmost integrity is expected of public servants, its absence is not only frowned upon but punished severely. Section 52, Rule IV of the URACCS provides: Section 52. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty - 1st Offense - Dismis