Clear meaning and intent

What is the meaning of the phrase "party adversely affected by the decision"? This is the issue that came up in this case of an employee covered by the Civil Service Law (PD 807) who was exonerated of the charges filed against him. Because of such exoneration, the argument brought forward is that the decision of exoneration is already final and unappealable since there is no more "party adversely affected by the decision" to speak of.

The party involved here was Orlando, a check processor and cash representative of a branch of a government bank. Upon the discovery by the bank of the loss of funds amounting to P 7 million, Orlando was administratively charged by the bank with gross neglect of duty. After almost one year of investigation, the administrative adjudication office of the bank rendered its decision approved by its vice president finding Orlando guilty as charged. The bank imposed upon him the penalty of "forced resignation with benefits . . . without prejudice to his monetary liability arising from the case."

Orlando asked for reconsideration of the decision. But the bank would not reconsider. So he appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which has jurisdiction over his case because of the penalty of removal or dismissal from office pursuant to Section 37(a) of PD 807.

Orlando won in the CSC which found that the evidence on record failed to establish neglect of duty on his part. When the CSC decision came out, there was already a change in the management of the bank as its ownership fell into the hands of the private sector.

So the bank under a new owner, tried to appeal the CSC decision to the Court of Appeals. But the latter dismissed the appeal. According to the CA, the phrase "party adversely affected by the decision" who has the right to appeal the decision under Section 39(a) of PD 807 refer solely to the public officer or employee who was administratively disciplined. Hence an appeal may be availed of only in a case where said officer or employee is found guilty.

Was the CA correct?

No.

The Civil Service Law did not categorically bar appeals by parties other than the respondent employee. What the law declared as "final" were only those decisions of heads of agencies involving suspensions of not more than thirty days or fines not exceeding thirty days salary. These decisions involve minor and petty offenses, and to allow multiple appeals in those instances would overburden the quasi judicial machinery of our administrative systems. There is nothing in the law (Section 39 (a) PD 807) that bars an appeal of a decision exonerating a government official or an employee from an administrative charge. If a Statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Indeed the campaign against graft and corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance in the government will be undermined if the government or the private offended party is prevented from appealing erroneous administrative decisions.

The bank therefore has the standing to appeal to the CA the exoneration of Orlando. After all it is the aggrieved party which has complained of his acts of dishonesty. It must be noted that the bank has already been privatized. It should therefore be allowed to appeal a decision that in its view that in its view hampers its right to select honest and trustworthy employees, so that it can protect and preserve its name as a premier banking institution in our country. Any way should Orlando be finally exonerated indeed, it might then be incumbent upon the bank to take him back into its fold (PNB vs. Garcia, Jr. G.R.141246, September 9, 2002).

* * *

E-mail us at: [email protected]