Scribd
Upload
141 views1 page

Navarro v. CSC: Jurisdiction in Appeals

The document discusses a court case regarding who has legal standing to appeal an administrative case decision. It finds that the complainant in an administrative case is merely a witness for the government, not an aggrieved party, and therefore does not have legal personality to appeal. Only the government employee respondent against whom disciplinary action was initiated has standing to appeal, as they are the party adversely affected by the decision. The appeals filed in this case were done without proper jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

spidercye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
141 views1 page

Navarro v. CSC: Jurisdiction in Appeals

The document discusses a court case regarding who has legal standing to appeal an administrative case decision. It finds that the complainant in an administrative case is merely a witness for the government, not an aggrieved party, and therefore does not have legal personality to appeal. Only the government employee respondent against whom disciplinary action was initiated has standing to appeal, as they are the party adversely affected by the decision. The appeals filed in this case were done without proper jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

spidercye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

1. Navarro v.

CSC 226 SCRA 522


 In Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission, also cited in Magpale, we further explained that:

. . . the complainant is not the party adversely affected by the decision so that she has no legal
personality to interpose an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. In an administrative case, the
complainant is a mere witness (Gonzalo v. D. Roda, 64 SCRA 120). Even if she is the Head of the
Administrative Services Department of the HSRC as a complainant she is merely a witness for the
government in an administrative case. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the
offense is committed against the government.

As it is clear that both public respondents acted without jurisdiction — EPZA, for
appealing MSPB's decision exonerating Navarro from the administrative charge and
CSC, for taking cognizance of, and deciding, the appeal — the issuance of the writ
of certiorari is inevitable.
 The phrase "party adversely affected by the decision" refers to the government employee
against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action which may
take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from
office. In the instant case, Coloyan who filed the appeal cannot be considered an aggrieved
party because he is not the respondent in the administrative case below.

You might also like