G.R. NO. 157877 - COMMISSIONER ON HIGHER EDUCATION, VS. ROSA F. MERCADO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the respondent's motion for reconsideration dated October 26, 1999 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Decision dated September 27, 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED. With reference to the subsequent charges of falsification of official documents, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as contained in the Formal Charge and Order of Preventive Suspension dated 03 January 2000 and upon recommendation of the Hearing and Investigation Committee constituted pursuant to CHED Resolution No. R-438-99 dated 24 December 1999, this Commission finds substantial basis to hold respondent liable to the foregoing charges, thus, respondent is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges in the proper forum, pursuant to SEC. 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules. [9] Respondent Mercado appealed the June 19, 2000 Resolution to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On October 18, 2000, the CSC issued CSC Resolution No. 00-2406, denying Mercado's appeal. [10] Respondent Mercado moved for its reconsideration. The motion was granted on August 21, 2002 with the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 02-1106, [11] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of Rosa F. Mercado is hereby GRANTED. CSC Resolution No. 00-2406 dated October 18, 2000 affirming the CHED decision dated June 19, 2000 is thus modified accordingly. Moreover, Mercado is ordered reinstated to the service with payment of backwages from the time she was dismissed therefrom until her actual reinstatement. [12] The CHED filed a Manifestation with Motion for Clarification dated September 9, 2002 asking, among others, whether CSC Resolution No. 02-1106 was final and executory and whether the CHED could still file a motion for reconsideration in view of the one motion for reconsideration rule in CSC proceedings. [13] For her part, respondent Mercado filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of CSC Resolution No. 02-1106. [14] Pending resolution of its Manifestation with Motion for Clarification and before the expiration of the period to appeal, the CHED filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for additional time within which to file a petition for review of CSC Resolution No. 02-1106. [14] Within the extended period allowed by the Court of Appeals, on October 3, 2002, the CHED filed a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72864, assailing CSC Resolution No. 02-1106. [16] Without delving into the merits, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 13, 2003 on the ground of prematurity. [17] Meanwhile, with the CHED's petition with the Court of Appeals filed and even decided already, on January 20, 2003 the CSC acted on the motion and manifestation filed by respondent Mercado and the CHED, respectively, through CSC Resolution No. 030054. [18] In the resolution, the