Posted by: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Amado Tolentino was employed as an Editorial Assistant in the SSS before with a salary of P2,400.00 per annum. His appointment as such was duly approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). He was given a promotion in salary from P2,400.00 per annum to P2,580.00 per annum. This promotion in salary was likewise duly approved by the CSC.
Later on, his designation was changed from Editorial Assistant to Credit Analyst. This appointment was also duly approved by the CSC.
However, he was given an appointment reinstating him to his former position as Credit Analyst. This reappointment was extended to him following his resignation from the SSS to run for a municipal position in his municipality in the 1961 elections. After which, he took his Oath of Office.
Later, his designation was changed from Credit Analyst to Technical Assistant, with an increase in salary from P2,580.00 per annum to P4,200 per annum.
It was the position of Technical Assistant (Executive Assistant) that Tolentino was holding when the SSC passed Resolution 1003 affirming the decision of Administrator Gilberto Teodoro finding Tolentino guilty of dishonesty, as charged, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service, effective on the first day of his preventive suspension with prejudice to reinstatement. The Administrator filed charges against Tolentino for dishonesty and electioneering.
Tolentino answered in two separate letters. The administrator was unsatisfied with his denial, and an investigation ensued, with Tolentino in preventive suspension. Tolentino received a letter from the Administrator informing him, among others, of his dismissal from the service by virtue of Resolution 1003 of the SSC.
Tolentino filed with the CFI Rizal (Quezon City, Branch IX) a petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction questioning the validity of Resolution 1003.
After the parties had submitted memoranda to support their respective contentions on the question raised by the pleadings, the lower court rendered an order dismissing Tolentino's petition for lack of jurisdiction over the SSC because the latter ranks with the CFI in the exercise of the quasi-judicial powers granted to it by the Social Security Act of 1954, as amended, following the decision of this Honorable Tribunal in Poblete Construction Co., et al. vs. Social Security Commission, et al.
Tolentino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, the present petitions for review by certiorari involve two different decisions of two different tribunals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction over administrative actions filed before it against its own erring employees.
HELD:
Yes. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, and its subsequent en banc resolutions are null and void, the same having been issued without jurisdiction. At the time Amado Tolentino was charged with and convicted of dishonesty in 1966 up to the time the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed with said court the unfair labor suit docketed as Case 5042-ULP, the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on erring employees of the Social Security Commission was vested exclusively in the Commissioner of Civil Service, without prejudice to appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals (Sections 18 and 36, R.A. 2260).
Consequently, the Court of Industrial Relations, created under Commonwealth Act 103, a statute of earlier vintage, had no jurisdiction over Case 5042-ULP. Again, jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested by law. It is not acquired by the consent or acquiescence of the parties, nor the unilateral assumption thereof by any tribunal. Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. And once acquired, jurisdiction continues, regardless of "subsequent happenings", until the case is finally terminated.
We recall that the petition before us originated from administrative charges of dishonesty and electioneering filed by the Administrator of the Social Security Commission before the same office on May 23 and 24, 1966. The Commission's Resolution No. 1003, the validity of which is questioned here in G.R. No. 28870 for jurisdictional reasons, was promulgated on September 15, 1966.
The Court found no further need to scrutinize the findings of the Court of Industrial Relations. To do so would benefit no one.
FACTS:
Amado Tolentino was employed as an Editorial Assistant in the SSS before with a salary of P2,400.00 per annum. His appointment as such was duly approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). He was given a promotion in salary from P2,400.00 per annum to P2,580.00 per annum. This promotion in salary was likewise duly approved by the CSC.
Later on, his designation was changed from Editorial Assistant to Credit Analyst. This appointment was also duly approved by the CSC.
However, he was given an appointment reinstating him to his former position as Credit Analyst. This reappointment was extended to him following his resignation from the SSS to run for a municipal position in his municipality in the 1961 elections. After which, he took his Oath of Office.
Later, his designation was changed from Credit Analyst to Technical Assistant, with an increase in salary from P2,580.00 per annum to P4,200 per annum.
It was the position of Technical Assistant (Executive Assistant) that Tolentino was holding when the SSC passed Resolution 1003 affirming the decision of Administrator Gilberto Teodoro finding Tolentino guilty of dishonesty, as charged, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service, effective on the first day of his preventive suspension with prejudice to reinstatement. The Administrator filed charges against Tolentino for dishonesty and electioneering.
Tolentino answered in two separate letters. The administrator was unsatisfied with his denial, and an investigation ensued, with Tolentino in preventive suspension. Tolentino received a letter from the Administrator informing him, among others, of his dismissal from the service by virtue of Resolution 1003 of the SSC.
Tolentino filed with the CFI Rizal (Quezon City, Branch IX) a petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction questioning the validity of Resolution 1003.
After the parties had submitted memoranda to support their respective contentions on the question raised by the pleadings, the lower court rendered an order dismissing Tolentino's petition for lack of jurisdiction over the SSC because the latter ranks with the CFI in the exercise of the quasi-judicial powers granted to it by the Social Security Act of 1954, as amended, following the decision of this Honorable Tribunal in Poblete Construction Co., et al. vs. Social Security Commission, et al.
Tolentino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, the present petitions for review by certiorari involve two different decisions of two different tribunals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Social Security Commission has jurisdiction over administrative actions filed before it against its own erring employees.
HELD:
Yes. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, and its subsequent en banc resolutions are null and void, the same having been issued without jurisdiction. At the time Amado Tolentino was charged with and convicted of dishonesty in 1966 up to the time the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed with said court the unfair labor suit docketed as Case 5042-ULP, the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on erring employees of the Social Security Commission was vested exclusively in the Commissioner of Civil Service, without prejudice to appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals (Sections 18 and 36, R.A. 2260).
Consequently, the Court of Industrial Relations, created under Commonwealth Act 103, a statute of earlier vintage, had no jurisdiction over Case 5042-ULP. Again, jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested by law. It is not acquired by the consent or acquiescence of the parties, nor the unilateral assumption thereof by any tribunal. Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. And once acquired, jurisdiction continues, regardless of "subsequent happenings", until the case is finally terminated.
We recall that the petition before us originated from administrative charges of dishonesty and electioneering filed by the Administrator of the Social Security Commission before the same office on May 23 and 24, 1966. The Commission's Resolution No. 1003, the validity of which is questioned here in G.R. No. 28870 for jurisdictional reasons, was promulgated on September 15, 1966.
The Court found no further need to scrutinize the findings of the Court of Industrial Relations. To do so would benefit no one.
