NALTDRA, NAL TDRA, petitioner, vs. CSC and Garcia, respondents.
Respon Res ponden dentt Violeta Violeta Garcia Garcia,, a Bac Bachel helor or of Laws FACTS: graduate and a first grade civil service eligible was appointed in the Land Registration Commission (LRC) as Deputy Register of Deeds II under permanent status from 1977 to September 1984. However, by virtue of E.O. No. 649 which took effect on February 9, 1981, authorized the restructuring of the Land Registration Commissio Commi ssion n to Natio National nal Land Titles and Deeds Registration Registration Administration (NAL (NALTDRA). TDRA). As a result, her (Violeta Garcia) employment status became temporary for not being a member of the Philippine Bar. She appealed to the Secretary of Justice but it was denied. The Civil Servi Service ce Comm Commissi ission on (CSC) in its Resolution Resolution dated June Jun e 30, 198 1988, 8, dir direct ected ed tha thatt pri privat vate e res respon ponden dentt Gar Garcia cia be restored to her position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or its equivalent in the NALTDRA. It held that "under the vested right theory the new requirement of BAR membership to qualify for permanent appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II or higher as mandated under said Executive Order, would not apply to her (private respondent Garcia) but only to the filling up of vacant lawyer positions on or after February 9, 1981, the date said Executive Order took effect." Since private respondent Garcia had been holding the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II from 1977 to September 1984, she should not be affected by the Executive Order No. 649. Petitionerr NAL Petitione NALTDRA TDRA filed this prese present nt petit petition ion to assa assailil the validity of the CSC Resolution. Whethe therr or not the new qua qualif lifica icatio tion n pre presc scrib ribed ed for ISSUE : Whe appointment to the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II under E.O. No. 649 should be applied to those who were already in the service at the time of the issuance and implementation of the said Executive Order. es,, E. E.O. O. No. 649 shoul should d be applie applied. d. The new RULING: Yes qualificat quali fication ion was not intended to remov remove e her from offi office ce but rather rat her,, it was a cri criter terion ion imp impose osed d con concom comita itant nt wi with th a val valid id reorganization measure. A reorganization reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In this case, E.O. No. 649 was enacted to improve the services and better systematize the operation of the Land Registration Commission. To this end, the requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key positions in the NALTDRA was imposed to meet the changing circumstances and new development of the times. Private Priv ate respondent respondent Garc Garcia ia who formerly held the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II did not have such qualification. It is thus th us cl clea earr th that at sh she e ca cann nnot ot ho hold ld any key po posi siti tion on in th the e NALTDRA.
LUIS B. DOMINGO, respondents.
petitioner,
vs.
DBP
and
CSC,
Petitione tionerr was employed employed by DBP as Senior Traini Training ng FACTS: Peti and Career Development Officer on permanent status from 1979 to December 1986. With the passage of E.O. No. 81 and Board Resolu Res olutio tion n No. 304 304-87 -87,, DBP und undert ertook ook the eva evalua luatio tion n and comparati comp arative ve asse assessm ssment ent of all its perso personnel nnel under the CSC approv app roved ed New Per Perfor forman mance ce App Apprai raisal sal Sy Syste stem, m, a pee peerr and control rating process which served as an assessment tool of DBP's screening process. Petitionerr Domin Petitione Domingo go was issued a tempo temporary rary appointment appointment on January 2, 1987 for a period of one (1) year, which was renewed for another period up to November 30, 1988. Thereafter, in a memora mem orandu ndum m dat dated ed Nov Novemb ember er 23, 198 1988 8 iss issued ued by the Fin Final al Review Committee, petitioner got a performance rating of "below average," by reason of which his appointment was "made to lapse." Consequently, petitioner filed with the CSC a verified complaint against DBP for illegal dismissal. He alleged that his dismissal const con stitu ituted ted a vio violat lation ion of the Civ Civil il Ser Servic vice e Law aga agains instt the issuance of temporary appointments to permanent employees, as well as of his right to security of tenure and due process. On November 27, 1989, CSC issued a resolution directing the reappointment of Mr. Domingo as Senior Training and Career
Developme Develo pment nt Of Offic ficer er or any suc such h equ equiva ivalen lentt ran rank k und under er the staf st affin fing g pat patter tern n of DBP. The ord order er for rea reappo ppoint intmen mentt was premised on the findings of the CSC that the action of the DBP to issue temporary appointments to all DBP personnel in order to allow for the maximum flexibility in evaluating the performance of incu in cumb mben ents ts is no nott in ac acco cord rd wi with th ci civi vill se serv rvic ice e la law w ru rule les. s. Accordingly,, to issue a temporary appointment to one who has Accordingly been on permanent status before will deprive the employee of benefits accorded to permanent employees and will adversely affect his security of tenure." DBP filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 1989 alleging that the issuance of temporary appointments to all the DBP employees was purely an interim arrangement; that in spite of the temporary appointment, they continued to enjoy the salary salary,, allowa all owance nces s and oth other er ben benefi efits ts cor corres respon ponding ding to per perman manent ent employees; that there can be no impairment of herein petitioner's security of tenure since the new DBP charter expressly provides thatt "qu tha "quali alifie fied d per person sonnel nel of the ban bank k may be app appoin ointed ted to appropriate positions in the new staffing pattern and those not so appo ap poin inte ted d ar are e de deem emed ed se sepa para rate ted d fr from om th the e se serv rvic ice; e;"" th that at petitioner was evaluated and comparatively assessed under a rating system approved by the respondent commission; and that petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process of law considering that, although several appeals were received by the Final Review Committee from other employees similarly situated, herein petitioner never appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary appointment although he was advised to do so by his direct supervisor supervisor.. On Apr April il 10, 199 1990, 0, CSC ren render dered ed the que quest stion ioned ed res resolu olutio tion n setting aside its previous decision and affirming the separation of herein petitioner. Hence this petition. ISSUES : (1) Whether or not the reorganization implemented by DBP is valid as it violates petitioner's petitioner's right to security of tenure; and (2) Whe Whethe therr or not the pet petiti itione onerr was deprived deprived of due process.
Yes, the reorganization implemented by the DBP is RULING: (1) Yes, valid. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. No less than the Constitution itself in Section 16 of the Transitory Provisions, together with Sections 33 and 34 of Executive Order No. 81 and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656, support this conclusion with the declaration that all those not so appointed in the imp implem lement entati ation on of sai said d reo reorga rganiz nizati ation on sha shall ll be dee deemed med separated from the service with the concomitant recognition of their the ir ent entitl itleme ement nt to app approp ropria riate te sep separa aratio tion n ben benefi efits ts and and/or /or retirement plans of the reorganized government agency agency.. Thus, it can safely be concluded that indeed the reorganization was attended by good faith, ergo, valid. The dismissal of herein petiti pet itione onerr is a rem remova ovall for cau cause se whi which, ch, the theref refore ore,, doe does s not violate his security of tenure. (2) Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 provides that "no officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid val id cau cause se and aft after er due notice notice and hearing. hearing."" The There re is no question that while dismissal due to a bona fide reorganization is recognized as a valid cause, this does not justify a detraction from the mandatory requirement of notice and hearing. However, it is equally true and it is a basic rule of due process that "what the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolu abs olute te abs absenc ence e the thereo reoff and the lac lack k of opp opport ortuni unity ty to be heard." There is no violation of procedural due process even where no hearing was conducted for as long as the party was given a chance to present his evidence and defend himself. The records show that petitioner, although several appeals were received by the Final Review Committee from other employees similarly situated, never appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary appointment although he was advised to do so by his direct supervisor. Consequently, Consequently, petitioner cannot, by his own inaction, legally claim that he was denied due process of law.
