MWSS VS HERN ANDEZ

FACTS: Petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was brought before the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region of the National Labor Relations Commission on charges of willful failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and other monetary benefits to its contractual employees numbering 2,500 or so.

In its defense MWSS claimed that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation and therefore the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case and assuming the contrary that the NLRC has jurisdiction the terms and conditions of the complainants who are all contractual employees are governed by their respective contracts.

On June 5, 1985, judgment was rendered by the labor Arbiter to whom the case was assigned, adverse to MWSS.

As regards the claim of MWSS of lack of jurisdiction in the NLRC over the case, the Arbiter made the following observations:

“This Commission agree (sic) with the respondent that if the complainants are regular employees of MWSS, it being a government owned and controlled corporation, said employees are within the mantle of the civil service rules and regulations, their salaries are standardized by the National Assembly, then this Commission has no jurisdiction in the case. But an examination of the records shows that complainants are not a regular employee of the respondent MWSS, but one of a hired workers or employees for limited period, that is upon completion of the project for which they were hired, they can be removed by the respondent, because there is no more work or the contract has already been terminate.”

Thus, the controversies respecting terms and conditions of employment between MWSS and its regular employees are not within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, said controversies do fall within the competence of the NLRC if they involve non-regular or contractual employees of the MWSS.y

For the second argument of MWSS which the Arbiter understands to be "that the contract of employment by the complainants is governed by their contract, and it is therefore incumbent for the respondent to be governed and to comply with their contract, he has this to say:

Respondent (MWSS) is citing Article 277 of the Labor Code to vouchsafe (sic) its contention about the lack of jurisdiction of the NLRC. The provision refers to the governance of the Civil Service Law vis-a-vis the terms

and conditions of government employees, those of government corporations included.

The complaint is not such a case as it is for monetary claims about which the Civil Service Decree, PD 807 does not provide. In fact, the last provision of Article 277 shows the ever protection by the State through the Code of the workers' right to due wages and other benefits by enjoining not to reduce the privileges being enjoyed by workers at the time of the adoption of the Code.ual law library

Thus the Civil Service Decree applies to employees in government corporations in all matters except "monetary claims"; as regards the latter, it is the Labor Code that governs.al law library

It is to invalidate the decision of the Labor Arbiter as well as a subsequent order directing execution thereof that the MWSS files a petition before this court..

ISSUE: Are employees of the MWSS covered by the

Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service?

HELD: The character of the MWSS as a government-

owned or controlled corporation is not contested; it is, in any case, a proposition that cannot be gainsaid.

Republic Act No. 6234 created it as a "government corporation to be known as the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System." As in the case of the National Housing Authority, therefore, employment in the MWSS is governed not by the Labor Code but by the civil service law, rules and regulations; and controversies arising from or connected with that employment are not cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission.vir library

The argument of the Labor Arbiter that it is

only disputes between the MWSS and

its regular employees that are beyond the jurisdiction of the NLRC, not those between it and its "non-regular or contractual" employees HAS NO LEGAL BASIS. It

is ruled out by the fact that positions in the civil service are classified into career and non-career service, and that the non-career service includes contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency.

The Labor Arbiter's other postulation, that the Civil Service Law governs employment in the MWSS in all aspect except "monetary claims," and that as to the latter, it is the Labor Code that applies, is even more patently illogical and deserves no merit.

On the contention of the private respondents 'that they are not employees of Metropolitan Waterworks and

Sewerage System (MWSS) and not being employees of the petitioner (MWSS) this case therefore lies within the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) through Arbiter Bienvenido Hernandez.

Such a contention also does not meritorious

since the existence of employer-employee relationship (between the MWSS and an individual) is not per se equivalent to being a government employee.

THUS the decision of the labor arbiter having been rendered without jurisdiction, are hereby declared void and set aside.

CSC v. SOJOR

FACTS: In 1991, Pres. Aquino appointed Henry Sojor as

university president of Central Visayas Polytechnic College (CVPC). Because of RA 8292 requiring the creation of a Board of Trustees, such was created and they elected Sojor still as president. He served a 4-year term and was re-elected for a 2nd term, 2002-2006. In 2004, CVPC was converted to Negros Oriental State University (NORSU).

Meanwhile, there were 3 administrative complaints filed against Sojor with the CSC. The first one was for dishonesty and grave misconduct because he signed the release of salary differentials for a certain employees despite absence of a required salary adjustment form, etc. The 2nd _{was a complaint for}

dishonesty, misconduct and falsification of official documents because he allegedly allowed the antedating and falsification of the adjustment payroll, to the prejudice of the instructors and professors who have pending requests for adjustment of their ranks. The 3rd one is a complaint for nepotism, for allegedly appointing his half- sister as casual clerk.

Sojor filed a motion to dismiss the first 2 complaints. He claims that the CSC has no jurisdiction over him as a presidential appointee and that since he as part of the non-competitive or unclassified service of govt, he was under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the President. He argued that CSC had no authority to entertain, investigate and resolve charges against him; that the Civil Service Law contained no provisions on the investigation, discipline, and removal of presidential appointees.

However, the CSC-Regional Office denied his motion to dismiss, which he appealed to the CSC proper. Sojor basically argues that since the BOT is under CHED, who is under the OP, then disciplinary jurisdiction is only on the OP, not CSC.

CSC denied the motion to dismiss, preventively suspended him and held that it had jurisdiction. It is said that it wasn’t the President that appointed him, but it was

the Board of Trustees/Regents. (Kasi diba nung una si Aquino, tapos may law na nagsasabi na meron na dapat na Board, who will vote for the univ pres.) Hence, Sojor, being a president of a state college is within the CSC’s jurisdiction. CSC further holds that it has concurrent

jurisdiction with the school’s BOT, over cases against officials and employees of the university. Since the

three (3) complaints against Sojor were filed with the CSC and not with the CVPC, then the former already acquired disciplinary jurisdiction over the appellant to the exclusion of the latter agency.

Upon appeal to the CA, it directed CSC to cease and desist from further conducting investigation over Sojor, and it held that CSC has no jurisdiction.

ISSUE: W/N the CSC has jurisdiction over the

administrative cases against Sojor.

HELD/RATIO: Yes, CSC has jurisdiction.

The Constitution grants to the CSC administration over the entire civil service. As defined, the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation.

CSC has been granted by the Constitution and the Administrative Code jurisdiction over all civil service positions in the government service, whether career or non-career. (Career are those who qualify after civil service exams while non-career are those who need not qualify through taking of the usual exams—elective officials and their staff, secretaries and officials of cabinet rank appointed by the president, members of commissions and boards, contractual personnel for specific jobs and emergency/seasonal personnel).

Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officers and employees.

It is true that the BOR of NORSU has the sole power of administration over the university. But this power is not exclusive in the matter of disciplining and removing its employees and officials. Although the BOR of NORSU is given the specific power under R.A. No. 9299 to discipline its employees and officials, there is no showing that such power is exclusive. In this case the CSC and

the BOR of the university has concurrent jurisdiction over the case.

All members of the civil service are under the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless otherwise provided by law. Being a non-career civil servant does not remove respondent from the ambit of the CSC. Career or non- career, a civil service official or employee is within the jurisdiction of the CSC.

Similar to the case of UP v. Regino, the SC struck down the claim of exclusive jurisdiction of the BORegents to discipline its employees. Pursuant to Article IX-B, Section 2(1), which states: "The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government- owned or controlled corporations with original charters," [UP] was a mere government-owned or controlled corporation, UP was clearly a part of the Civil Service, and is therefore subject to its jurisdiction.

As to the contention that these cases are a violation of his academic freedom, the SC held that such principle does not apply to the case because the guaranteed academic freedom does not give an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis. For that reason, a school official, who is a member of the civil service, may not be permitted to commit violations of civil service rules under the justification that he was free to do so under the principle of academic freedom.

Lastly, the SC held that though Sojor was reappointed as the president of the school pending administrative charges, this did not amount to condonation of his alleged acts because that applies only to elective officials, not appointive ones.

SECTION 2

(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy- determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.