Name: Glenn Anne Marie.

Berdin
Topic: Creation by General Law and Special Law
Title: Mary Lou Geturbes Torres vs Corazon Alma De Leon
Source: G.R. No. 199440
Date: January 18, 2016

Facts: Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Internal Auditing Office conducted an audit of the
funds and accounts of the PNRC General Santos City chapter. Based on the audit report, Torres
incurred a technical shortage in the amount of Php 4.3 Million. De Leon, as secretary general of
PNRC, charged Torres with Grave Misconduct. De Leon issued a memorandum imposing
penalties of one-month suspension (July 1-31) and transfer to national headquarters against
Torres. The latter filed a notice of appeal addressed to the Board of Governors of the PNRC and
furnished copy to the CSC. The appeal memorandum was addressed to the CSC and copies were
sent to the PNRC. De Leon denied the appeal. However, the CSC promulgated a resolution
imposing a penalty of dismissal from service against Torres. The latter questioned the
jurisdiction of the CSC because the PNRC is not a government-owned and controlled
corporation.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission have appellate jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether or not the CSC lose its appellate jurisdiction when Torres voluntarily served the
one-month suspension
3. Was the Notice of Appeal properly filed at the CSC?

Held:
1. Yes.
2. No
3. Yes

Ruling:
 The PNRC, although not a GOCC, is sui generis in character. The sui generis character of
PNRC requires the court to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case
basis. Since the issue involves in the enforcement of labor laws and penal statutes, PNRC
can be treated as a GOCC. Thus, the CSC has jurisdiction. Having jurisdiction over the
PNRC, the CSC had authority to modify the penalty and order the dismissal of Torres
from the service. Moreover, the CSC has appellate jurisdiction on administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty
days or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary.
 The CSC did not lose its appellate jurisdiction. A decision becomes final even before the
lapse of the fifteen-day period to appeal when the defendant voluntarily submits to the
execution of the sentence. In the present case, however, it cannot be said that she
voluntarily served her penalty in view of the fact that she appealed therefrom. Moreover,
an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is
suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under
preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal, in the event he wins the appeal.
 An examination of the Notice of Appeal shows that the same was addressed to the PNRC
and copy furnished the CSC. On the other hand, an examination of the Appeal
Memorandum shows that the same was addressed to the CSC and copies thereof were
sent to both the PNRC and the CSC. It is thus clear that a copy of the Notice of Appeal
was furnished the CSC and the Appeal Memorandum was filed with it. While the rules
required that the notice of appeal including the appeal memorandum shall be filed with
the CSC, it is undeniable that furnishing a copy of the Notice of Appeal with the CSC and
filing with it the Appeal Memorandum