CSC vs SOJOR

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HENRY A. SOJOR, respondent 

554 SCRA 160, May 22, 2008

FACTS:

Herein respondent, Henry Sojor, president of Negros Oriental State University (formerly known as Central Visayas
Polytechnic College) was charged of nepotism, dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before the Civil Service Commission.

Herein petitioner moved to dismiss these cases on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Academic freedom was also
invoked.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not a president of a State University is outside the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction
constitutionally granted to the Civil Service Commission
2. Whether or not the assumption by the Civil Service Commission of jurisdiction over a president of a State
University violate academic freedom

RULING:

1. No, the president of a State University is still within the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction constitutionally
granted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

As explained by the court, “except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the CSC 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.

In the case at bar, it is clear that while the Board of Regents (BOT) of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU)
has the sole power of administration over the university, such power is not exclusive in the matter of disciplining and
removing its employees. Instead, such power is concurrent between the BOT and the CSC.

Hence, herein respondent Henry Sojor, the president of NORSU, is within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC.

2. No, the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a State University does not violate
academic freedom.

While it is certain that academic institutions and personnel are granted with wide latitude of academic freedom, such
freedom does not give an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis. For that
reason, as the court explained in its ruling, 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.

In the case at bar, the respondent is facing charges of grave offenses punishable with suspension or even dismissal.
And evidently, these cases have not been acted upon by the university officials based on the re-appointment they have
given to respondent. And according to the law, in “complaints against civil service officials and employees which are
not acted upon by the agencies and such other complaints requiring direct or immediate action, in the interest of
justice”  the CSC may take over.

Hence, the assumption of the CSC of jurisdiction over herein respondent State University president is only deemed
proper and not in violation of academic freedom.