Luna Mae G.

Biñas LLB I-C

Navarro v. Civil Service Commission

226 SCRA 522 G.R. Nos. 107370-71 September 16, 1993

Facts:
Cable drums were stolen from Ford Stockyard in Mariveles Bataan on June 21, 1989 who were
owned by Takaoka Engineering Construction Co. Ltd worth P21,250.00. The suspect for the
stolen cable drums is the Petitioner Mario Navarro .The Senior Deputy Administrator of Export
Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) approved an Order terminating the services of Navarro and
finding him guilty as charged.
Navarro appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB rendered its
decision setting aside the Order issued by the Senior Deputy Administrator of EPZA. The
decision of the MSPB also reinstated Navarro with payment and back wages and other benefits
due him from the time of his dismissal. The MSPB denied the motion for reconsideration of the
EPZA. The Regional Trial Court of Bataan dismisses the criminal case filed against Navarro and
his co-accused for qualified theft. EPZA sought to reverse the decision of the MSPB before the
CSC and on July 16, 1992, the CSC rendered its decision setting aside the MSPB’s decision dated
December 11, 1991 and the CSC found Navarro guilty of grave misconduct and reimposed the
penalty of dismissal. The CSC also denied in its Resolution dated September 11, 1992 the
motion for reconsideration of Navarro.
In the recourse, Navarro claims that the CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess jurisdiction in deciding the case without considering other pertinent evidence but
the EPZA filed for the dismissal of the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a
manifestation to support the plea of the Petitioner in the argument that there can be no appeal
in the MSPB’s decision exonerating Navarro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission and the Export Processing Zone Authority acted
without jurisdiction.
HELD:
The MSPB rendered a favorable decision for Navarro and this fact alone should have prevented
EPZA from appealing to the Commission on the bases of prevailing jurisprudence. Under P.D.
807 or The Philippine Civil Service Law, the CSC has no appellate jurisdiction over MSPB’s
decisions exonerating officers and employees from administrative charges and P.D. 807 does
not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees.
The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative cases involving suspension for
more than thirty days or removal or dismissal from office. P.D. 807 provides that appeals shall
be made by the party adversely affected by the decision. The party adversely affected by the
decision refers to the government employee whom the administrative case is filed for the
purpose of disciplinary action. EPZA, for appealing MSPB’s decision and exonerating Navarro
from administrative charge and CSC, for taking recognizance of, and deciding the appeal shows
that both EPZA and CSC acted without jurisdiction.