Citation: GSIS vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No.

96938 202 SCRA 799 October 15, 1991 Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to review the order of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dated June 20, 1990 which directed the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to pay the compulsory heirs of deceased Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel for the period from the date of their illegal separation up to the date of their demise. The Order dated November 22, 1990, however, denied herein petitioners motion for reconsideration of CSCs Order dated June 20, 1990. Deceased Elizar Namuco and Eusebio Manuel were illegally dismissed by the GSIS for allegedly being involved in irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials. Issue: Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has the power to execute its judgments, final orders or resolutions? Whether or not the writ of execution issued on June 20, 1990 is void because it varies with the Courts Resolution of July 4, 1988? Ruling: The Civil Service Commission has the power to execute its judgment, final orders or resolutions. The CSC is a constitutional commission invested by the Constitution and relevant laws not only with the authority to administer the civil service but is also vested with quasi-judicial powers. It has the authority to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it or brought to it on appeal. The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, normally and logically is deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it thus renders unless the law otherwise provides. It is quite obvious that the authority to decide cases would be inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see that what has been decided is carried out. The writ of execution issued on June 20, 1990 is valid. The Court upholds the same, simply because there is no fair and feasible alternative in the circumstances. The binding force of Resolution of July 4, 1988, for all intents and purposes, is that it makes exoneration in the administrative proceedings a condition precedent to payment of said back salaries, it can not however exact an impossible performance or decree a useless exercise such as that the subsequent disciplinary proceedings is an empty, and inutile procedure as to the deceased employees, they can not possibly be bound by any substantiation in the said proceedings of the abovementioned charges.