[ G.R. No. 228236, January 27, 2021 ]
LOPEZ, M., J.:
Disposition: The petition is DENIED.
FACTS
On October 9, 2012, the CSC issued a Decision granting the appeal of Panga-Vega. It ruled that she only needed to present a medical certificate attesting her physical fitness to return to work and need not exhaust the full leave she applied for under RA No. 9710. It was further held that applying the rules on maternity leave, she is entitled to both the commuted money value of the unexpired portion of the special leave and her salary for actual services rendered effective the day she reported back for work. On November 23, 2012, the HRET sought reconsideration, but the CSC denied this in its Resolution dated February 12, 2013.
On March 19, 2013, the HRET filed a Petition for Review assailing the foregoing Decision and Resolution of the CSC with the CA. On April 29, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition. Adopting the CSC's findings, it ruled Panga-Vega may opt not to consume the full leave she applied for upon her submission of the medical certificate. It also held that nothing in RA No. 9710 precludes the suppletory application of the rules on maternity leave to the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710. The HRET sought reconsideration, but the CA denied this in its Resolution dated November 8, 2016. Hence, this petition.
The HRET argues that the CSC should not have applied suppletorily the rules on maternity leave to the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710. It also contends that Panga-Vega did not sufficiently comply with the "CSC Guidelines on the Availment of the Special Leave Benefits for Women Under RA No. 9710" (CSC Guidelines), warranting her return to work.
Panga-Vega counters that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the HRET was not authorized to file the instant petition. She further claims that the suppletory application of the rules on maternity leave to the special leave benefit is more in accord with the thrust and intent of RA No. 9710. As to her compliance with the CSC Guidelines, she maintains that her medical certificate and her attending physician's subsequent clarifications sufficiently showed her fitness to return to work.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is correct in filing the instant petition before the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
RULING
The instant petition should have been filed by the OSG, not by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the HRET.
The HRET was created by virtue of Section (Sec.) 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that the House of Representatives shall have its own Electoral Tribunal that shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its Members. As a recognized instrumentality of the Government, the Court, in a catena of cases, exercised over it its expanded judicial power to include the determination of "whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Meanwhile, the OSG was constituted as the law office of the Government and shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer as such. It shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies, instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. It is tasked to represent the Government and its officers in the Court, the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government, or any officer thereof, in his official capacity is a party, among others.
The OSG, however, may be excused from representing the Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities when there is an express authorization by the OSG, naming therein the legal officers who are being deputized in cases involving their respective offices, subject to its supervision and control, or when the OSG takes a position different from that of the agency it is duty bound to represent.
A perusal of the records shows that there was no express authorization by the OSG naming the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the HRET as its deputized legal officers in filing this petition. There was also no proof, let alone an allegation, that the OSG took a position different from the HRET in this case. Instead of providing a plausible justification why the OSG did not represent it, the HRET simply reasoned that the instant petition should be given course in the interest of a speedy determination of issues. It even posited that the defect in its filing of the instant petition may be cured upon a subsequent filing by the OSG of a manifestation and motion ratifying and adopting it, but there had been no such manifestation and motion in this case. These facts necessarily evince that HRET lacked the legal capacity to initiate this case, and the HRET gave no compelling reason for the Court to disregard this finding.
Comments
Post a Comment