Anda di halaman 1dari 1


ISSUE: W/N the plaintiff is the party adversely affected
FACTS: This is an action in replevin against the Insular by the decision.
Collector of Customs for the recovery of seven cases of W/N the decision of the city mayor is unappealable
cotton textiles alleged to have been imported into the pursuant to Section 37, paragraph (b) of P.D. 807.
Philippine Islands or for the value of said textiles if
physical delivery cannot be made. HELD:
The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant (Insular 1. NO. P.D. 807 otherwise known as "The Philippine
Collector of Customs) when only 23 out of 30 textiles Civil Service Law" shows that said law does not
were delivered to them. contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the officers or employees from administrative charges.
defendant absolving him from the complaint, from which Section 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provides: The
judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court. Commission shall decide upon appeal all
administrative disciplinary cases involving the
ISSUE: W/N the Insular Collector of Customs, a public imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than
officer, is liable. thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty
days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer,
HELD: NO. The plaintiff contends that the seven missing removal or dismissal from office.
cases having disappeared after coming into the hands of
the Customs authorities and their disappearance not Said provision must be read together with Section 39
having been satisfactorily explained, it must be paragraph (a) of P.D 805 which contemplates:
presumed that they have been misdelivered. The Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party
Supreme Court, however, find this contention adversely affected by the decision
untenable. The presumption is that official duty has been
regularly performed and we cannot presume that the Party adversely affected by the decision - refers to
Collector of Customs has delivered the merchandise to a the government employee against whom the
person not entitled thereto. That the goods have been administrative case is filed for the purpose of
misdelivered is therefore an affirmative allegation, the disciplinary action which may take the form of
proof of which is incumbent upon the party by whom it suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer,
is made. If a misdelivery has been made, proof thereof removal or dismissal from office. In the instant case,
should not be difficult to obtain; the records of the Coloyan who filed the appeal cannot be considered
Customs House are available for that purpose. The an aggrieved party because he is not the respondent
plaintiff failed to prove that there was a misdelivery of in the administrative case below.
the textiles. 2. YES. Pursuant to Section 37 paragraph (b) of P.D.
807, the city mayor, as head of the city government,
FROILAN A. MENDEZ vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION is empowered to enforce judgment with finality on
and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY lesser penalties like suspension from work for one
month and forfeiture of salary equivalent to one
FACTS: Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City Vicente month against erring employees.
N. Coloyan filed an administrative complaint against the
petitioner (Mendez), a legal research assistant in the By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal
Quezon City Office of the City Attorney, for Gross may be availed of only in a case where the
Misconduct and Dishonesty, allegedly for having torn off respondent is found guilty of the charges filed
a portion of a transfer certificate of title from the registry against him. But when the respondent is exonerated
book of Quezon City and for having pocketed it. of said charges, as in this case, there is no occasion
The mayor of Quezon City dismissed the said complaint for appeal.
against the petitioner for insufficiency of evidence. Then
Coloyan appealed to the MSPB. MSPB reversed the
decision of the mayor and found Mendez guilty as
charged and be dismissed from the service.
Mendez appealed such decision to the CSC, the latter
affirmed the MSPB’s decision.
Mendez filed a motion for reconsideration alleged that
Coloyan is not an aggrieved party or "party adversely
affected by the decision" allowed by law to file an appeal,
and that his exoneration by the city mayor is
unappealable pursuant to Section 37, paragraph (b) of
P.D. 807.
The CSC, however, denied said motion for
reconsideration ruling that there is nothing in the said
law which precludes an appeal from the decision of the
disciplining authorities to determine, among others,
whether the decision rendered is supported by the facts
on record and the law. Thus, the petition.