otherwise known as the CSC Revised Rules on Contempt. Based thereon, the CSC wields the power to punish for contempt. Indeed, the Court has never nullified the rules of procedure of Constitutional Commissions on ground that their respective enabling laws supposedly do not authorize them to prescribe penalties for conte

en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before any of its offices so long as such rules do not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Further, Section 12(2), Title I(A), Book V of EO 292 ordains: SECTION 12. Powers and Functions.

-The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: xxxx (2) Prescribe amend and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws; xxxx Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the CSC issued Memorandum Circular No. 42, s. 1990 which was later amended by CSC Resolution No. 071245 dated June 22, 2007, otherwise known as the CSC Revised Rules on Contempt. Based thereon, the CSC wields the power to punish for contempt.

Indeed, the Court has never nullified the rules of procedure of Constitutional Commissions on ground that their respective enabling laws supposedly do not authorize them to prescribe penalties for contemptuous conduct. The Court never curtailed and will never curtail their power to punish for contempt on such ground. While it is true that Section 16(2)(d), Title I(A), Book V of EO 29233 states that the CSC through its adjudicative arm shall have the power to "punish for contempt in accordance with the same procedures and penalties prescribed in the Rules of Court", Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court states that the application of said rules is merely suppletory, viz: Section 12.

Contempt against quasi-judicial entities. -Unless otherwise provided by law, this Rule shall apply to contempt committed against persons, entities, bodies or agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or shall have suppletory effect to such rules as they may have adopted pursuant to authority granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contempt has been committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as may be filed therefor.

(emphases added) Indeed, the Rules of Court must defer to the CSC's power to promulgate and apply its own rules in penalizing contempt committed against it. The existence of the CSC's Revised Rules on Contempt, therefore, calls for the application of its own procedure and penalties, thus, precluding Section 7, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court from coming into play at first instance. This is not an expansion of the CSC's authority to punish for contempt under EO 292 but the Court's deference to the CSC to wield such power.

Under Section 434 of the CSC Revised Rules on Contempt, a fine of P1,000.00 may be imposed on the contemnor for each day of defiance of, disobedience to, or non-enforcement of, a final ruling of the CSC. Further, if the contempt consists in the violation of an injunction or omission to do an act which is within the power of respondent to perform, he or she, in addition, shall be liable for damages as a consequence thereof. In accordance, therefore, with Section 4 of the CSC Revised Rules on Contempt, the CSC imposed a fine of P1,000.00 per day or a total of P416,000.00 on Eusebio for his contumacious defiance of the CSC's directive to reinstate Tirona to her post as PLP President.

This confonns with the subsequent CSC rules penalizing contumacious conduct before it. Section 76, Rule 15 of the 2011 Revised Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides: Section 76. Punishment, if found guilty.

- If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against the Commission, he/she may be punished by a fine of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos per day for every act of indirect contempt. Each day of defiance of, or disobedience to, or non-enforcement of a final order, resolution, decision, ruling, injunction or processes, shall constitute an indirect contempt of the Commission.

If the contempt consists in the violation of an injunction or omission to do an act which is still within the power of the respondent to perform, the respondent shall, in addition, be made liable for all damages as a consequence thereof. The damages shall be measured by the extent of the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party by reason of the misconduct, disobedience to, defiance of a lawful order, and/or such other contumacious acts or omissions of which the contempt is being prosecuted, and the costs of the proceedings, including payment of interest on damages. ( emphasis added) Meanwhile, Section 85 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service reads: Section 85.

Penalty, if found guilty. If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt against the Commission, he/she may be penalized by a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) per day for every act of indirect contempt and/or suspension for one (1) month up to a maximum period of six (6) months. The fine imposed shall be paid to the Commission and shall be the personal liability of the respondent.

(emphasis added) xxx As worded, the CSC may impose a fine of P1,000.00 a day for every act of indirect contempt committed against it. The word "may" implies that it is discretionary, not mandatory.

It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility.35 It means, therefore, that the CSC may impose a fine less than P1,000.00 a day or even dispense therewith depending on the circumstances of each case. In other words, it is not constrained to impose a fine of P1,000.00 a day at every instance of contempt committed against it. The attendant circumstances here compel the imposition of the maximum fine of P1,000.00 per day for the repeated contumacious act committed by Eusebio against the CSC over a long period of four hundred sixteen (416) days to be exact.

To emphasize, Eusebio's failure to reinstate Tirona as PLP President did not only come with the obvious consequence of depriving her of the salaries and emoluments she would have been entitled to. More than this, the public was unduly deprived of the professional services Tirona would have been able to render them as PLP President. As it was, Eusebio's omission to reinstate Tirona was not only deliberate, but undeniably tainted with evident bad faith.

As the Court of Appeals aptly ruled, time was of the essence in Tirona's reinstatement since her term was only until January 31, 2012. Eusebio could not have plausibly feigned ignorance of the immediately executory nature of CSC rulings since he had served as chief executive of Pasig City for three (3) terms. What manifestly appears on record was Eusebio's obstinate refusal to implement the immediately executory CSC rulings for over four hundred sixteen (416) days.

In fact, even on appeal, Eusebio continued to defy the CSC 's order of reinstatement despite the appellate court's non-issuance of an injunctive writ against its implementation. In the end, Eusebio's appeal outlived Tirona's supposed term. The eventual dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 117512 became a mere paper victory for Tirona.36 She was prevented from assuming her office and performing her functions as PLP president to the detriment not only of herself and PLP, but more importantly, the stakeholders of the institution.

Judgments of courts and quasi-judicial bodies are couched in mandatory language. Compliance therewith is compulsory, especially when public interest is at stake. The authority of these rulings, however, is diminished by the flagrant and stubborn refusal of party-litigants to comply with their directives.

The worst of these miscreants taunt judicial bodies and flout procedural rules unabashed, prolonging litigation by opting to pay the fine for contempt rather than fulfilling their legal obligation promptly, as here. Eusebio acted as though he was above the law when he brazenly defied the numerous rulings of the CSC.

Contrary to his claim of good faith, he willingly chose to suffer under pain of contempt than reinstate Tirona. This cannot be countenanced. Neither should the penalty imposed by the CSC be reduced unnecessarily lest we trade the rule of law for a mere pittance.

Indeed, the rationale behind the fine of P1,000.00 a day is not difficult to divineto give teeth to the coercive powers to the CSC as the implementer of civil service laws. It is meant to deter those who dare defy the authority of the CSC and in the process, interrupt, nay prejudice, the flow of public service. All told, the CSC did not act arbitrarily when it prescribed a fine of P1,000.00 per day as penalty for Eusebio's repeated defiance of the final and executory judgment of the CSC.

The penalty is reasonable and fair in relation to the purpose of preserving the CSC's Constitutional mandate as the central personnel agency of the Philippine government tasked with rendering final arbitration on disputes regarding personnel actions in the civil service and implementing civil service rules and regulations.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition in G.R. No. 223644 is GRANTED and the Decision dated July 21, 2015 and Resolution dated February 19, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 129526 are MODIFIED. The fine imposed by the Civil Service Commission on Roberto C. Eusebio of P1,000.00 per day for four hundred sixteen (416) days, or a total of P416,000.00 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Reyes, J, Jr., and Zalameda, JJ., concur.