9.

AGUILAR V COURT OF APPEALS

Buri, Kenneth Roger R.
FACTS
- Aguilar, an Election Officer IV of COMELEC-Navotas, was designated as acting EO and Chairman of
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Pedro, Laguna, during the 1998 Elections.
- His duties included the canvassing of election returns, the preparation of the certificates of canvass of
votes, and the proclamation of the winning candidates.
- During the period of canvassing the election returns, Aguilar and the MBC resolved to suspend its
proceedings and to resume a few hours later.
- Aguilar failed to return to his post which resulted to the MBC proclaiming the winners without his
participation.
- A complaint was raised regarding the issue (since his signature is required in the certificates of canvass
and proclamation) and a formal investigation ensued.
- In the COMELEC investigation, he was deemed guilty of Abandonment, Neglect of Duty and Conduct
Unbecoming of a Public Officer and was penalized with 6 months suspension.
- He filed for reconsideration but the same was denied; He then filed another memorandum
(reconsideration) but the same was still denied; He then filed for an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
but the same was denied.
- He appealed with the CSC. The CSC affirmed his guilt (but of Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct
Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service) and imposed to him a penalty of dismissal from
service.
- CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the decision of the CSC dismissing Aguilar from service is binding.
HELD
- No. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court Appeals.
- Rule III of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 991936, otherwise known as the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), provides that a party adversely affected
by the decision of the disciplining authority may only file one motion for reconsideration:
Sec. 38. Filing of Motion for Reconsideration. The party adversely affected by the decision
may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority who rendered the same
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Sec. 31. Limitation. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

- In the present case, Aguilar, instead of filing a proper appeal with the CSC, filed a second motion for
reconsideration with the COMELEC, after the denial of his first motion for reconsideration. He also
subsequently filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation.
- When Aguilar filed his notice of appeal with the CSC, more than six (6) months had lapsed; the CSC
should have forthwith denied his Notice of Appeal for non-compliance with Rule III of URACCS.
- Aguilars Notice of Appeal, having been filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period, did not toll
the COMELEC Resolution suspending him for six months due to his violation, from becoming final and
executory.