G.R. No.

96938 October 15, 1991

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HEIRS OF ELIZAR NAMUCO, and HEIRS OF EUSEBIO MANUEL

Employees of the GSIS were removed for being notoriously undesirable having been found to be connected
with irregularities in the canvassing of supplies and materials. Five of the six employees appealed to the Merit
systems Board which declared the dismissal as illegal since no formal charges were filed and the employees
were not given the opportunity to be heard. GSIS appealed the decision with the Civil Service Commission, but
to no avail; GSIS was ordered to reinstate them with back salaries and benefits. GSIS appealed to the SC. The
latter upheld the illegality of the dismissal, ordered the reinstatement without prejudice to the right of the GSIS
to pursue proper disciplinary action, but eliminated the payment of back wages pending the outcome of the
disciplinary proceedings.
When the decision became final, the heirs of the dismissed employees filed a motion to execute the decision of
the CSC. GSIS opposed stating that the CSC decision has been modified by the SC decision and that payment of
back salaries were eliminated. The CSC however granted the motion and ordered GSIS to pay the back salaries of
the dismissed employees from the date of their illegal separation to the day of their death. GSIS filed a motion
for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied.
Issue: Does the Civil Service Commission have the power to execute its judgments, final orders or resolutions?
Ruling:
Yes,it does.
The Civil Service Commission, like the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, is a consitutional
commission invested by the Constitution and relevant laws not only with authority to administer the civil
service, 4 but also with quasi-judicial powers. 5 It has the authority to hear and decide administrative
disciplinary cases instituted directly with it or brought to it on appeal. 6 The Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision it within sixty days from the date of its submission for on certiorari by any aggrieved
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. 7 It has the power, too, sitting en banc, to promulgate
its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices, which rules should not
however diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. 8

On October 9, 1989, the Civil Service Commission promulgated Resolution No. 89-779 adopting, approving and
putting into effect simplified rules of procedure on administrative disciplinary and protest cases, pursuant tothe
authority granted by the constitutional and statutory provisions above cited, as well as Republic Act No. 6713. 9
Those rules provide, among other things, 10 that decision in "administrative disciplinary cases" shall be
immediately executory unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. If the decision of the
Commission is brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari, the same shall still be executory unless a
restraining order or preliminary injunction is issued by the High Court." 11 This is similar to a provision in the
former Civil Service Rules authorizing the Commissioner, "if public interest so warrants, ... (to) order his decision
executed pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals." 12 The provisions are analogous and entirely
consistent with the duty or responsibility reposed in the Chairman by PD 807, subject to policies and resolutions
adopted by the Commission, "to enforce decision on administrative discipline involving officials of the
Commission," 13 as well as with Section 37 of the same decree declaring that an appeal to the Commission 14
"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 an appeal."

In light of all the foregoing consitutional and statutory provisions, it would appear absurd to deny to the Civil
Service Commission the power or authority or order execution of its decisions, resolutions or orders which, it
should be stressed, it has been exercising through the years. It would seem quite obvious that the authority to
decide cases is inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see taht what has been decided is carried out.
Hence, the grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases,
should normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it
thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides.