G.R. No.

79072 January 10, 1994 disciplinary cases and, where the heads of ministries
and agencies assume jurisdiction first, their decisions
RODOLFO ENRIQUE AND JESUS and determinations are appealable to the Merit Systems
BASILIO, petitioners, Board. The Civil Service Commission, however, remains
vs. the final administrative appellate body in these matters,
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CIVIL as provided in Section 8 of Presidential Decree No.
SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents. 1409 . . .." Great weight must be accorded to the
interpretation or construction of a statute by the
SYLLABUS government agency called upon to implement the same.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE FACTS:

COMMISSION; HAS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
For and in consideration of P500.00 to P1,000, accused
TO HEAR AND DECIDE DISCIPLINARY CASES
Corazon Pacheco, Jesus Basilio, Virgilio Valencia,
INVOLVING OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
Rodolfo Enrique, Rogelio Maglagui, Eduardo Garcia and
CIVIL SERVICE. — The CSC is an agency within the Lilia Cunanan, all employees of the Civil Service
purview of Section 37(b) of P.D. No. 807 with respect to Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga,
its own employees. On June 8, 1978, P.D. No.
helped and/or assisted some examinees in answering
1409 created the MSPB, as an office under the CSC,
examination questions by assigning them to particular
and vested on that board, among other functions, the
rooms known as “chocolate rooms”.
investigation of administrative cases involving officers
and employees of the civil service. Section 5 of P.D. No. Accused were charged by the CSC motu propio (sic) for
1409. Petitioners claim that Section 37(b) of P.D. No. DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT, BEING
807 has been impliedly repealed by P.D. No. 1409.
NOTORIOUSLY UNDESIRABLE, RECEIVING FOR
Repeals by implication are not favored. The first duty of
PERSONAL USE FOR A FEE, GIFT OR OTHER
the Court must always be to reconcile the conflicting
VALUABLE THINGS IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL
provisions of the statutes and it is only when the DUTIES, AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
repugnancy is irreconcilable that we can say that the BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE
earlier law has been impliedly repealed by the later law.
A cursory reading of the provisions under Section 37(b)
Dated March 14, 1984, preventive suspension was
of P.D. No. 807 shows that the disciplinary jurisdiction
issued to CSC Resolution No. 84-052. Petitioners denied
given to heads of departments, agencies and
the charges and moved for an immediate dismissal of
instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities is the case, but the CSC denied the request for formal
limited to officers and employees of the Civil Service hearing and resolved to precede in accordance with
under their jurisdiction or who are employed in their
Section 40 of PD 807.
respective offices. In the instant case, the petitioners are
CSC employees. Hence, disciplinary jurisdiction over
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration alleging :
them is vested with the head of the CSC, the agency
(a) that Section 40 of P.D. No. 807 was not applicable to
having jurisdiction over them. their case because of the absence of the circumstances
provided therein; and (b) that their constitutional rights
CONCURRENT WITH THE MERIT SYSTEMS
would be placed in jeopardy if summary proceedings
PROTECTION BOARD WITH RESPECT TO
were held in lieu of formal proceedings, since they opted
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES CONNECTED WITH
SAID COMMISSION. — We held in Government Service for a formal investigation.
Insurance System v. Civil Service Commission, 204
CSC dismissed petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
SCRA 826 (1991) that "when the law bestows upon a
for lack of merit however, Rogelio Maglagui and Lilia
government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide
Cunanan was reduced to one year suspension
cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed
that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that
another body is likewise vested with the same Rodolfo Enrique, Jesus Basilio, Corazon Pacheco and
Virgilio Valencia appealed to the then Intermediate
jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent
Appellate Court. The resolution of the Civil Service
jurisdiction over the matter." P.D. Nos. 807 and 1409
Commission for Enrique and Basilio is hereby
therefore vest concurrent original jurisdiction over
AFFIRMED and is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
disciplinary matters to both the CSC and the Merit
Systems Protection Board with respect to officials and with respect to respondents Pacheco and Valencia who
employees connected with the CSC. This concurrent are hereby ordered to be reinstated
jurisdiction over disciplinary cases is further stressed
Petitioners contend that the CSC, its jurisdiction being
in Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 of the
merely appellate, has no original jurisdiction to hear and
Civil Service Commission. "As provided in Presidential
to decide disciplinary cases involving officers and
Decree No. 1409, which amended Presidential Decree
No. 807, the heads of ministries and agencies, on one employees of the Civil Service. They urge that it is the
hand, and the Merit Systems Board on the other, have Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which has the
power to hear and to decide administrative cases
concurrent original jurisdiction over disciplinary and non-
involving officers and employees of the civil service as
provided in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1409
Petitioners claim that Section 37 (b) of P.D. No. 807 has
been impliedly repealed by P.D. No. 1409
Repeals by implication are not favored. The first duty of
the Court must always be to reconcile the conflicting
provisions of the statutes and it is only when the
repugnancy is irreconcilable that we can say that the
earlier law has been impliedly repealed by the later law
Motion for reconsideration of Enrique and Basilio was
denied for lack of merit.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the CSC had original jurisdiction
over CSC Case No. 138 against petitioners.
2. Whether or not petitioners were denied due
process of law; and,
3. Whether or not the dismissal of petitioners from
the service through a summary proceeding by the CSC
was proper.
Held:
Great weight must be accorded to the interpretation or
construction of a statute by the government agency
called upon to implement the same. As provided in
Presidential Decree No. 1409, which amended
Presidential Decree No. 807, the heads of ministries and
agencies, on one hand, and the Merit Systems Board on
the other, have concurrent original jurisdiction over
disciplinary and non-disciplinary cases, and where the
heads of ministries and agencies assume jurisdiction
first, their decisions and determinations are appealable
to Merit Systems Board. The Civil Service Commission,
however, remains the final administrative body in these
matters, as provided in Section 8 of Presidential Decree
No. 1409.
The commission of the acts imputed to petitioners took
place on or before November 1983 or long before the
repeal of Section 40 of P.D. No. 807. Hence, the
operative law is still Section 40.
Section 40. Summary Proceedings. No formal
investigation is necessary and the respondent may be
immediately removed or dismissed if any of the following
circumstances is present:
(a) When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt
is strong;
(b) When the respondent is a recidivist or has been
repeatedly charged and there is reasonable ground to
believe that he is guilty of the present charge.
(c) When the respondent is notoriously undesirable.
Resort to summary proceedings by disciplining authority
shall be done with utmost objectivity and impartiality to
the end that no injustice is committed: Provided, That
removal or dismissal except those by the President,
himself, or upon his order, may be appealed to the
Commission.
Petitioners were informed of the charges levelled against
them and were given reasonable opportunity to present
their defenses. As a matter of fact, petitioners admitted
that they filed their answer to the formal charges against
them and submitted additional evidence when asked to
do so. Petitioners even moved for a reconsideration of
the adverse CSC decision. After the denial of their
motion, petitioners appealed to the Intermediate
Appellate Court, which, in turn, considered said appeal.
Hence, the supposed denial of administrative due
process has been cured.
Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals were affirmed
for the accused, Enrique and Basilio.
Section 37 of the Civil Service Decree, P.D. No. 807,
provides:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The heads of departments, agencies
and instrumentalities, provinces, cities
and municipalities shall have jurisdiction
to investigate and decide matters
involving disciplinary action against
officers and employees under their
jurisdiction.
The CSC is an agency within the purview of Section 37
(b) of P.D. No. 807 with respect to its own employees.
On June 8, 1978, P.D. No. 1409 created the MSPB, as
an office under the CSC, and vested on that board,
among other functions, the investigation of
administrative cases involving officers and employees of
the civil service.
This concurrent jurisdiction over disciplinary cases is
further stressed in Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series
of 1978 of the Civil Service Commission, which in
pertinent part states:
As provided in Presidential Decree No. 1409, which
amended Presidential Decree No. 807, the heads of
ministries and agencies, on one hand, and the Merit
Systems Board on the other, have concurrent original
jurisdiction over disciplinary and non-disciplinary cases,
and where the heads of ministries and agencies assume
jurisdiction first, their decisions and determinations are
appealable to Merit Systems Board. The Civil Service
Commission, however, remains the final administrative
body in these matters, as provided in Section 8 of
Presidential Decree.
G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
JOSE S. AMADORA, ET.AL
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE
SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH SERGIO P.
DLMASO JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO
ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru his parents and
natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR
GUMBAN, and ROLANDO VALENCIA, thru his
guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents.
SYLLABUS:
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND
INTERPRETATION; REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS;
APPLIED IN ARTICLE 2180 OF THE CIVIL CODE. —
Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides: "Lastly, teachers
or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody."
Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis,
"teachers should apply to the words "pupils and
student's and "heads of establishments of arts and
trades" to the word "apprentices.”
TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, DEFINED. — The teacher-in-
charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or
other administrative superior to exercise supervision
over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to
which they are assigned.
FACTS:
Alfredo Amadora, seventeen years old was about to
graduate, however while in the school, Colegion de San
Jose-Recoletos, a classmate, Pablito Damon, fired a gun
that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and
his life as well. Damon was convicted of homicide thru
reckless imprudence.Herein petitioners, as the victim's
parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article
2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean
of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Damon
and two other students, through their respective parents.
The complaint against the students was later dropped.
The trial court held the remaining defendants liable to
the plaintiffs. On appeal to the respondent court,
however, the decision was reversed and all the
defendants were completely absolved. The petitioners
contend that their son was in the school to show his
physics experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation;
hence, he was then under the custody of the private
respondents. The private respondents submit that
Alfredo had gone to the school only for the purpose of
submitting his physics report and that he was no longer
in their custody because the semester had already
ended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments
which are technically not school of arts and trades, and,
if so, when the offending student is supposed to be in its
custody. – YES, but for academic institutions, only the
teachers-in-charge are liable
HELD
The pertinent part of article 2180 reads as follows:
“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils
and students or apprentices so long as they remain in
their custody.”
The provision in question should apply to all schools,
academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is
academic rather than technical or vocational in nature,
responsibility for the tort committed by the student will
attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following
the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In
the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the
head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an
exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in
general shall be liable for the acts of their students
except where the school is technical in nature, in which
case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
Following the canon ofreddendo singula
singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and
students" and "heads of establishments of arts and
trades" to the word "apprentices."
In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by
the record and in the light of the principles herein
announced that none of the respondents is liable for the
injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora
that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos. While the court deeply
sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son
under the tragic circumstances here related, the court
nevertheless are unable to extend them the material
relief they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the law
they have invoked. Wherefore, the petition is denied.
Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court has
arrived at the following conclusions:
1. At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was
still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos notwithstanding that the fourth year
classes had formally ended. It was immaterial if he was
in the school auditorium to finish his physics experiment
or merely to submit his physics report for what is
important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose.
As previously observed, even the mere savoring of the
company of his friends in the premises of the school is a
legitimate purpose that would have also brought him in
the custody of the school authorities.
2. The rector, the high school principal and the dean of
boys cannot be held liable because none of them was
the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of
them was exercising only a general authority over the
student body and not the direct control and influence
exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular
classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its
discipline. The evidence of the parties does not disclose
who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was.
The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone to school
that day in connection with his physics report did not
necessarily make the physics teacher, respondent
Celestino Dicon, the teacher-in-charge of Alfredo's killer.

3. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-

charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in
enforcing discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived
observance of the rules and regulations of the school or
condoned their non-observance. His absence when the
tragedy happened cannot be considered against him
because he was not supposed or required to report to
school on that day. And while it is true that the offending
student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge
even if the latter was physically absent when the tort was
committed, it has not been established that it was
caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the
student. On the contrary, the private respondents have
proved that they had exercised due diligence, through
the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining
that discipline.

4. In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably

the dean of boys who should be held liable especially in
view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier
confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students
and returned the same later to him without taking
disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher
authorities. While this was clearly negligence on his part,
for which he deserves sanctions from the school, it does
not necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador as it
has not been shown that he confiscated and returned
pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son.

5. Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San

Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the
article because only the teacher or the head of the
school of arts and trades is made responsible for the
damage caused by the student or apprentice. Neither
can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of
the other private respondents for none of them has been
found to have been charged with the custody of the
offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of
his duties in connection with such custody.

Reddendo Singula Singulis - When a list of words has a

modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to
the last word, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a
hospital. Here,"in a hospital" only applies to doctors and
not to firemen or policemen.