GSIS vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

202 SCRA 799 (1991)

FACTS:
The GSIS dismissed 6 employees alleged to have been found connected with
irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials. 5 out of 6 employees appealed to
the Merit System Board who found the said dismissal to be illegal because they are
effected without formal charges filed or that the employees were not given the chance to
answer. The GSIS appealed in the Civil Service Commission who affirmed the decision
of the board and ordered the reinstatement of the employees except for the 2 who
passed away. GSIS then filed for certiorari to the Court for review of the decision of Civil
Service Commission to which the Court affirms but modifies the Order under Resolution
dated July 4, 1988 “eliminating the payment of back salaries to private respondents until
the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is known”.
Another petition of certiorari is filed by GSIS against the order of the Civil Service
Commission dated June 20, 1990 directing GSIS "to pay the compulsory heirs of
deceased Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel for the period from the date of their illegal
separation up to the date of their demise." Namuco and Manuel are a part of the 5
employees who were dismissed, but these two passed away before the final judgment of
the case.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has the power to execute its judgments
and final orders or resolutions.
Whether or not the writ of execution issued by the Civil Service Commission dated
June 20, 1990 is void since contrary to the Court’s Resolution of July 4, 1988.

RULING:
Yes. The Civil Service Commission is a constitutional commission vested with the
authority to administer civil service and also quasi-judicial powers by the Constitution
and relevant laws.It has the authority to hear and decide administrative disciplinary
cases instituted directly with it or brought to it on appeal. It also has the power, sitting en
banc, to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices, which rules should not however diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. If the decisions of the Commission is brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari, the same shall still be executory unless a restraining order or preliminary
injunction is issued by the High Court.
The court ruled that under constitutional and statutory provisions, It is absurd to deny
to the Civil Service Commission the power or authority to enforce or order execution of
its decision that it exercises for years. That the grant to a tribunal or agency of adjucatory
power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and logically be
deemed to include the grant of authority of authority to enforce or execute the judgments
it thus renders, unless otherwise provided by the law.
 No, the Order dated on June 20, 1990 of the Civil Service Commission is not void.
The court ruled that the order of the Civil Service Commission should be upheld not only
because of compassionate grounds but also since there is no fair and feasible alternative
in the circumstances that the death of the 2 employees already sealed the outcome of
the judgment, foreclosing the initiation of disciplinary administrative proceedings, or the
continuation of any pending, against the deceased employees. That the Resolution of
July 4, 1988 cannot exact an impossible performance or decree a useless exercise. As it
is in case of crimes, the death of the offender extinguishes criminal liability as to the
personal and to the pecuniary if it occurs before final judgment.Thus, the subsequent
disciplinary proceedings, even if not assailable on grounds of due process, would be an
inutile, empty procedure in so far as the deceased employees are concerned.