Question 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.

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
“PROCEDURE FOR CONTEMPT

“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
“MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

“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.”