G.R. NO. 161733 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, VS. ARNULFO A. SEBASTIAN. G.R. NO. 162463MUNICIPALITY OF KABASALAN, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY AND MAYOR FREDDIE I. CHU, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ARNULFO A. SEBASTIAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission that, judgment be rendered: 1.) Declaring the dismissal of the complainant to be illegal and contrary to law; 2.) Ordering the respondents the reinstatement of the complainant to his position as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan ; 3.) Ordering the respondents to pay the complainant of his backwages and other benefits he is entitled to. [15] Vice-Mayor Genito alleged in his answer [16] that Sebastian was appointed as Municipal Secretary and not as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary; hence, it was the Mayor who had the authority to dismiss or reinstate him to the said position. He averred that he did not concur with the Mayor's overt act of terminating Sebastian's services. [17] In his comment, [18] Mayor Chu, maintained that Sebastian was never formally appointed as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. He averred that the complainant abandoned his office; hence, he acted in accord with law in terminating Sebastian's employment as municipal secretary. [19] On July 23, 1998, the CSC issued Resolution No. 981989 [20] dismissing Sebastian's complaint. It ruled that the complainant failed to submit a medical certificate to justify his claim that he was, indeed, sick during the period of his absence; the medical report of Dr. Corregidor Catane was not enough. The CSC also declared that the complainant failed to report for duty for 43 days despite the Mayor's directive, and even failed to inform the Mayor of his whereabouts. The CSC further stated that Sebastian's claim for reinstatement was already barred by laches, considering that he filed his complaint with the CSC only on August 2, 1996, three years from October 30, 1992, the date of his separation from the service. The fallo of the CSC Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the complaint of Arnulfo A. Sebastian is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, his request for reinstatement to his former position as SB Secretary is hereby denied. [21] Sebastian's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC through Resolution No. 002012 dated September 4, 2000. [22] Sebastian filed his petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, naming the CSC as the sole respondent and ascribing the following errors: I. THAT THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS; II. THAT THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE WAS ILLEGAL AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED; III. THAT THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MUNICIPAL VICE-MAYOR HAD IMPLIEDLY CONCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR DROPPING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE DESPITE ITS EARLIER CONCLUSION THAT THE VICE-MAYOR AND NOT THE MAYOR WHO IS VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE A MUNICIPAL SECRETARY; IV. THAT THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS ALREADY BARRED BY LACHES. [23]