CONSTANTINO-DAVID vs PANGANDAMAN-GANIA.docx

HON. KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID vs . ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA

Facts:

Respondent is a Director II and Manila Information and Liaisoning Officer of the Mindanao State University (MSU). She has been holding this position after the confirmation of her appointment by the MSU oard of Regents. !hereafter" a certain #gnes Mangondato as #cting Director in her place in vie$ of the alleged e%piration of her term and $as no longer allo$ed to report for $or&. She verified the stat's of her a ppointment and fo'nd o't that her appointment $as not s'bmitted to the ivil Service ommission for attestation. !he ivil Service ommission declared her removal from office as illegal" e%onerated her from the charge of being on absence $itho't official leave and ordered her reinstatement as Director II and Manila Information and Liaisoning Officer of MSU b't disallo$ed the payment of bac& salaries for the  period she $as not $or&ing as a res'lt of the illegal dismissal. dismissal. MSU moved for reconsideration of S Resol'tion" $hile respondent moved for its early e%ec'tion. Respondent did not see& a revie$ of any of the resol'tions of the S incl'ding the order denying bac& bac & salaries and other  benefits for the period she $as o't of $or&. She instead p'rs'ed her prayer for reinstatement reinstatement b't MSU ref'sed to employ her bac&. ence" she $as compelled to file a second motion for the e%ec'tion of S Resol'tion. *vent'ally" respondent for the first time +'estioned the portion of S Resol'tion prohibiting the payment of bac& $ages and other benefits to her for the period that her employment $as terminated" and moved for the modification of the resol'tion by granting her the relief prayed for $hich $as denied. !he Office of the Solicitor ,eneral filed the instant petition for revie$ allegedly in behalf of the p etitioners to $hich respondent filed in her o$n behalf a omment claiming that the S cannot be a party-petitioner in a case $here its decision is the s'bect of revie$. Issue:

/hether or not the ivil Service ommission is a real p arty-in-interest in the case at bar.

Held: N

!his o'rt held that the sit'ation $here the S0s p articipation is beneficial and indispensable often involves complaints for administrative offenses" s'ch as neglect of d'ty" being notorio'sly 'ndesirable" inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official d'ties" and the li&e" $here the complainant is more often than not acting merely as a $itness for the government $hich is the real party in'red by the illicit act. In cases of this nat're" a r'ling of the o'rt of #ppeals favorable to the respondent employee is 'nderstandably adverse to the government" and 'navoidably the S as representative of the government may appeal the decision to this o'rt to protect the integrity of the civil service system. !he S may also see& a revie$ of the decisions of the o'rt of #ppeals that are detrimental to its constit'tional mandate as the central  personnel agency of the government tas&ed to establish a career service" adopt meas'res to  promote morale" efficiency" efficiency" integrity" integrity" responsiveness" progressiveness progressiveness and co'rtesy in the civil service" strengthen the merit and re$ards system" integrate all h'man reso'rces development  programs for all levels and ran&s" and instit'tionali1e a management climate cond'cive to p'blic

acco'ntability. 2onetheless" the right of the S to appeal the adverse decision does not  precl'de the private complainant in appropriate cases from similarly elevating the decision for revie$. In the case of ivil Service ommission v. Dacoycoy" this o'rt held that the real party-ininterest in a case involving the non-rene$al of the appointments of contract'al employees $o'ld  be the person $ho $as allegedly dismissed from $or& and not the S" for it is he $ho $o'ld  be benefited or in'red by his reinstatement or non-reinstatement and $ho is present" available and competent to bring the matter on appeal. Li&e a 'dge $hose order or decision is being assailed" the S sho'ld not be oined in the petition as it is not a combatant in a proceeding $here opposing parties may contend their respective positions $itho't the active participation of the S. In the case at bar" the S is not the real party-in-interest as this s'it confronts the Decision of the o'rt of #ppeals to a$ard bac& $ages for respondent arising from an illegitimate personnel and non-disciplinary action of MSU" $hich is different from an administrative disciplinary  proceeding $here the in'red party is the government. !his o'rt fail to see ho$ the assailed Decision can impair the effectiveness of government" damage the civil service system or $ea&en the constit'tional a'thority of the S so as to a'thori1e the latter to prosec'te this case. #s a r'le" the material interest for this p'rpose belongs to MSU since it instigated the illegal dismissal and the e%ec'tion of the Decision devolves 'pon it.