Case Study 02
Read and understand your assigned case.
Identify and give the following:
1. Title - Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Hon. Civil Service Commission
and Maria Asuncion Salazar
2. Promulgation Date – December 11, 1991
3. Ponente of the case – Medialdea, J.
4. Nature of the filed Petition – certiorari
5. Nature of the Case – The petitioner contends whether the CSC has jurisdiction over the
case
6. Court with original jurisdiction – Supreme Court
7. Court where the case has been filed – Supreme Court
8. Session in the Supreme Court – EN BANC
9. Major Field of Law – Administrative Law
10. Doctrine/Principle used in the decision – In the case at bar, we note that the appeal of
Salazar was endorsed by the Review Committee created under Executive Order No. 17
to both the Merit Systems Board and the Civil Service Commission. In the absence of a
decision from the Merit Systems Board, the Commission cannot legally assume
jurisdiction over the appeal. Hence, its decision (Resolution No. 87230) in favor of
Salazar dated July 22, 1987 and all subsequent resolutions of the Commission in this
case are void. Likewise, the Order of the Board dated June 30, 1988, setting aside its
previous order upholding the termination of Salazar in deference to the Commission's
final appellate jurisdiction over the matter, is null and void. Jurisdiction is vested by law
and is not lost nor be legally transferred by voluntary surrender in favor of a body not
vested by law with such jurisdiction.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted. The questioned Resolution of the Civil Service
Commission is annulled. The Order of the Merit Systems Board dated March 9, 1988 is
reinstated subject to the right of Salazar to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
11. Full text or original manuscript (weblink) –
[Link]
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not holding that it was the
Merit Systems Board, not said Commission, which had appellate jurisdiction over the subject
personal action of termination of services of private respondent;
2. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not holding that
Resolutions Nos. 87-230 and 88-825, dated July 22, 1987 and November 6, 1988, respectively,
were issued without jurisdiction;
3. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not holding that resolutions
Nos. 87-230 and 88-825 were void ab initio or legally inexistent;
4. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not holding that the Order
of the Merit Systems Board dated June 30, 1988 was, likewise, void and legally inexistent, and
that the Order dated March 9, 1988, which it set aside, had, accordingly, become final and
executory;
5. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in denying petitioner's appeal
on the basis of said void resolutions;
6. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not holding that private
respondent's position as Technical Assistant III was highly confidential and, therefore, belonged
to the non-career service or co-terminous with the tenure of the previous appointing authority
(the former President and General Manager of GSIS);
7. Whether or not the respondent GSIS erred in not holding that the termination of private
respondent's services entailed no removal or dismissal but an expiration of term and, therefore,
not violative of the constitutional prohibition against suspension or dismissal without cause of
civil service officers or employees; and
8. Whether or not the respondent Civil Service Commission erred in not affirming the subject
personal action of termination of services of private respondent. (pp. 219-220, Rollo)
RULING:
