In Dario v.

Mison , it was ruled that reorganizations in this jurisdiction have beenregarded as val id provided they are pursued in good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization iscarried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureauc racy moreefficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separa tion actually occurs becausethe position itself ceases to exist. And in that cas e, security of tenure would not be a Chinesewall. Be that as it may, if the aboli tion, which is nothing else but a separation or removal, is donefor the political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, otherwise not in good faith, novalid abolition takes place and whatever abolition done is void ab initio. Th ere is an invalidabolition as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds. Indeed, there is no such thing as anabsolute right to hold office. Except consti tutional offices which provide for special immunity asregards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.