You are on page 1of 4

University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 132860, April 3, 2001 PANGANIBAN, J.

Facts: Dr. Alfredo B. De Torres is an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines in Los Baos
(UPLB) who served as the Philippine Governments official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP) during his unpaid leave. When the term of his leave of absence was about to expire CIRDAP requested for an extension of said leave of absence. The request was denied and Dr. De Torres was advised to report for duty not later than September 15, 1989; also he was apprised of the possibility of being considered on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) if he failed to return and report for duty as directed. On January 3, 1994, Dr. De Torres wrote the incumbent Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal that he was reporting back to duty at ACCI-UPLB; the Chancellor said that since records at UPLB do not show that he had been officially dropped from the rolls he may report for duty effective January 3, 1994. However, the Civil Service Commission, upon the instance of ACCI-UPLB, ruled that Dr. De Torres is considered to have been dropped from the service as of September 1, 1989, for he was already on AWOL beginning that date since his request for extension of leave of absence for one year was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of merit, hence the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CSC had violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement and disregarded the
Universitys academic freedom, which includes the right to determine who may teach and who may be dropped from the service.

Held: YES, The Civil Service Commission predicated its ruling on Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil
Service Rules which provides that if an employee who is on leave without pay for any reason fails to return to duty at the expiration of one year from the effective date of such leave, he shall be considered automatically separated from the service. However, Petitioner De Torres was never actually dropped from the service by UP. He remained in the Universitys roll of academic personnel, even after he had been warned of the possibility of being dropped from the service if he failed to return to work within a stated period. His salary was even increased three times and he was promoted in rank with the explicit approval of the Board of Regents. UPs actuations, in spite of Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules, are consistent with the exercise of its academic freedom. We have held time and again that the University has the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. Clearly, this freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel. As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure.

Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999 PARDO, J.:

Facts: In 1995, George P. Suan, Citizens Crime Watch Vice-President, Allen Chapter, Northern Samar,
filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Quezon City, a complaint for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism against respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy. After a formal investigation, the CSC promulgated its resolution on January 28, 1997 finding no substantial evidence to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct. However, the CSC found Dacoycoy guilty of nepotism on two counts as a result of the appointment of his two sons, Rito and Ped Dacoycoy, as driver and utility worker, respectively, and their assignment under his immediate supervision and control as the Vocational School Administrator Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CSCs resolution was reversed ruling that the respondent did not appoint his two sons; hence, respondent was not guilty of nepotism. The Court further held that it is the person who recommends or appoints who should be sanctioned, as it is he who performs the prohibited act.

Issue: Whether or not Dacoycoy is guilty of nepotism Held: YES, the law defines nepotism as all appointments to the national, provincial, city and municipal
governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited. The word relative and members of the family referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. The following are exempted from the operations of the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed in a confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and (d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made to the Commission. It is true that Dacoycoy did not appoint or recommend his two sons to the positions of driver and utility worker in the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. In fact, it was Mr. Jaime Daclag, Head of the Vocational Department of the BCAT, who recommended to DECS Region VIII the appointment of Rito Dacoycoy as driver and appointed Ped Dacoycoy as casual utility worker. However, it was the respondent who recommended Mr. Daclags authority to appoint first level positions. It was also the respondent who certified that funds are available for the proposed appointment of Rito and even rated his performance as very satisfactory. Further, Ped, listed him in his job description as his next higher supervisor. Unquestionably, Mr. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy, who was the school administrator. Mr. Daclag recommended the appointment of respondent's two sons and placed them under respondent's immediate supervision serving as driver and utility worker of the school. Both positions are career positions. Clearly he is guilty of nepotism.

Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 124678, July 23, 1997 REGALADO, J.:

Facts: Petitioners were charged by the DECS Secretary with grave misconduct; gross neglect of duty;
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and several other violations for staging mass actions on September 17 to 19, 1990. Petitioners were simultaneously placed under preventive suspension. The DECS Secretary rendered a decision finding petitioners guilty as charged and suspending several teachers without pay for nine months. On appeal to the Civil Service Commission, the CSC affirmed the decision of the Secretary but modified the period of suspension to six months without payment of back wages. Unsatisfied with the decision of the CSC, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals; but it was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioners contend that they were only exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances and did not stage a strike which is prohibited for employees in the public service.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioners staged a strike Held: YES, it is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that petitioners purpose was to
realize their demands by withholding their services. The fact that the conventional term strike was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling. The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the absence of any express legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, employees in the public service may not engage in strikes, walkouts and temporary work stoppages like workers in the private sector. The Petitioners are being penalized not because they exercised their right of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances but because of their successive unauthorized and unilateral absences which produced adverse effects upon their students for whose education they are responsible. The actuations of petitioners definitely constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, punishable under the Civil Service law, rules and regulations.

Santos v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 139792, November 22, 2000 DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Facts: Petitioner Antonio P. Santos is a Judge of the MeTC of Quezon City, and on 1 April 1992 he
optionally retired under R.A. No. 910, as amended, and received his retirement gratuity under the law for his entire years in the government service. On 2 December 1993, petitioner was appointed Director III of the Traffic Operation Center of the Metropolitan Manila Authority. Upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7924, MMA was reorganized and renamed Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA). Under section 11 of RA 7924, petitioner, upon separation is entitled to separation benefits equivalent to one and one-fourth (1) monthly salary for every year of service. Petitioner insists that since retirement gratuity is not considered as double compensation, his service in the Judiciary should be included in the computation of his separation benefits under Section 11 of RA 7924. CSC-NCR said that petitioner may either, refund his separation/retirement benefits and claim his gross retirement/separation pay without any deduction corresponding to his separation pay received, or not refund his separation/retirement pay but suffer a deduction of his retirement/separation gratuity for the total amount representing his previous separation/retirement pay received. Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the CSC; however CSC denied the appeal and the Court of Appeals found no reason to rule otherwise.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to separation benefit under RA 7924 notwithstanding the
fact that he already received retirement gratuity under RA 910

Held: NO, There is no specific rule of law which applies to petitioners case. Nevertheless, the Court
finds it equitable to deny his claim for payment of separation pay at the rate of one and one-fourth (1) months salary for every year of his service in government, that is, inclusive of the n umber of years he served as Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner already received and is continually receiving gratuity for his years of service as a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge. Equity dictates that he should no longer be allowed to receive further gratuity for said years of service in the guise of separation pay. Suffice it to state that upon his retirement from his office as a Judge, petitioner has already closed a chapter of his government service. The State has already shown its gratitude for his services when he was paid retirement benefits under RA 901. For that is what retirement benefits are for. To credit his years of service in the Judiciary in the computation of his separation pay under R.A. No. 7924 notwithstanding the fact that he had received or has been receiving the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended, would be to countenance double compensation for exactly the same services. Such would run counter to the policy against double compensation for exactly the same services.