The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question disciplining authority refuses to implement CSC Resolution

  • Concerned Public Servant
  • Concerned Public Servant's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
6 years 8 months ago #613 by Concerned Public Servant
Concerned Public Servant created the topic: disciplining authority refuses to implement CSC Resolution
Sometime of January 2017, CSC issued a decision to a Respondent, dismissing him from the service.

A motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed before the commission.

On September, CSC promulgated a Resolution denying the MR of the respondent.

Now, the commission ordered CSCRO to monitor the implementation of aforesaid resolution.

On October 12, the proper disciplining authority of the respondent received the monitoring letter from CSCRO but until now. The proper disciplining authorities do not act or willfully disregard CSC resolution/decision.

The proper disciplining authorities argue is that the respondent applied for TRO/injunction before the Court of Appeals.

As far as our information, the application of the respondent for TRO before the CA is still pending. And it is still uncertain if respondent's application for TRO/injunction will be granted.

Question: does the proper disciplining authorities be charged for indirect contempt of the commission?

Who should file a complaint? Or a mere cite of contempt would be enough?

When is the effectivity of the CSC resolution denying the MR of the respondent?

As far as we know, the proper disciplining authorities approved the request for extension of service filed by the respondent prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Please, we need legal advice ASAP.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

6 years 8 months ago #629 by Action Officer 14
Action Officer 14 replied the topic: disciplining authority refuses to implement CSC Resolution
Dear Maám/Sir:

May we invite your attention to the following provisions of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) relevant to your concern:

“Rule 16

“Section 82. Contumacious/Contemptuous Acts Punishable. Any person found guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, decision, resolution, ruling, summons, subpoena, command or injunction of the Commission may be punished for indirect contempt.

“Section 83. How proceedings are commenced. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the Commission by an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he/she should not be punished for indirect contempt. A motion to cite for indirect contempt may also be filed with the Commission. In both cases, proceedings shall be conducted at the Office for Legal Affairs, Civil Service Commission.

“The conduct of proceedings for indirect contempt cases shall follow, as far as applicable, the procedure required in the conduct of disciplinary investigation provided under these Rules.

x x x

“RULE 22

“Section 115. Execution of the Decisions of the Commission. The decisions of the Commission shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15 days) from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.

For this purpose, the CSC ROs shall monitor and assist in the effective and immediate implementation of these decisions.

“Section 116. Effect of Pendency of Petition for Review/Certiorari with the Court. – The filing and pendency of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme Court shall not stop the execution of the decision of the Commission unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction.

“Section 117. Non-execution of Decision. Any officer or employees who willfully refuses or fails to implement the executory resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the prejudice of the public service and the affected party, may be cited in indirect contempt of the Commission as defined in Rule 16 hereof and may be administratively charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service or Neglect of Duty or be held criminally liable under Section 67 of Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987.”

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum