Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MikeLuz Reconsideration PDF
MikeLuz Reconsideration PDF
Re: Reassignment/
-versus- Transfer (Appeal)
x--------------------------------------x
states:
1
Section 72. When and Where to File. A
decision or ruling of a department or agency may be
appealed within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof
by the party adversely affected to the Civil Service
Regional Office and finally, to the Commission Proper
within the same period.
Appellants qualifications
Mindanao.
2
5. After four (4) years in government, Appellant returned
Corporate Affairs at the Far East Bank and Trust Company. From
2 He graduated magna cum laude and garnered two awards for academic
excellence James L. Hagerty Award (School of Liberal Arts) and St. Thomas
Aquinas Award (Integral Program).
3 He was an Edward S. Mason Fellow in International Development.
3
offer because he wanted to serve his country by contributing to
government.
Hidalgo, successively.
4
and organizing the National Textbook Delivery Program
teachers;
school openings.
regions).
6 During the entire PGMA Administration, no procurement, personnel or
financial scandal has rocked the Department. The lone scandal attributed to the
Department involved a controversial error-laden textbook procured a decade ago
but which are still in the schools. The Department recalled the textbook and put
in place a tighter textbook evaluation process to prevent such errors from
recurring in public school textbooks in the future.
5
13. In sum, Appellant is a highly-educated, competent,
material support from the private sector for schools under the
Ms. San Pablo, to call the office of DES Vargas to inquire if this
7A copy of this letter and the proof that this check was deposited to the DepED
OSEC Trust Account is attached as Annexes I and I-1 of the Appeal.
6
17. After Ms. San Pablo reported to him that the Office of
Appellant that she was not privy to the Presidents decisions on the
PSF but that the Fund was disbursed solely at the discretion of the
instructions.
7
office trust fund. He, however, instructed Ms. San Pablo, not to
accounting office from the PMS for deposit and transfer to the
first check in August, though they now bore two signatures - those
PSF.
auditing procedures.
8 Certified true copies of these checks are attached as Annexes I-series of the
Appeal.
9 The SARO is the notice from the DBM to a department that informs the latter
that funds are now allotted and can be obligated. In effect, the SARO provides
the department with the authority to spend funds.
10 The NCA is the notice from the DBM that the cash has been deposited or
transferred to the account of the department and can be drawn against. Only at
this point in time can a check be prepared and/or released to the payee.
8
24. Upon the request of the Appellant in a letter dated 6
requesting for the transfer of the two cleared checks (21 August
2005 and 3 September 2005) from the DepED central office trust
asked what the dates were on the checks. When asked why she
did not know the dates on the checks being the signatory, she told
of the Appeal.
12 A certified copy of the letter of the Commission on Audit to the Appellant is
9
the Appellant that she usually pre-signed blank checks for the PSF
but would give these directly to the President. She said she was
not privy thereafter to the details of the checks, nor to the projects
dated.
the Appellant with another urgent matter. The PMS called her and
division office.
four (4) checks to the PSF, including the first one (21 August 2005)
already deposited into the DepED central office trust account. For
Budget Officer and Cashier to his office. The official receipt for the
receipt had not yet been given to the Office of the President/PMS
10
and the check had yet to be deposited into the departments trust
account.
that the amount in the first check (which had already been
check.14
decision.
Disbursement Voucher for the first P5.0 M and instructed Ms. San
14 A certified copy of the letter documenting the return of the checks is attached
as Annex M of the Appeal.
15 A certified copy of the cancelled voucher with the Appellants marginal note
11
34. On 11 September 2005, a Sunday, PCIJs Ms. Chua
posted the story on the PCIJ weblog site which became a source of
States for a conference in New York City. That same day, the PCIJ
September 2005.17
Appellants termination
when his office received a letter from the Executive Secretary that
read:
Appeal.
17 A certified copy of this Deed of Donation is attached as Annex P of the
Appeal.
18 Annex C of the Appeal.
12
38. As Appellant was then out of the country, the OIC-
13
resign from his position, the letter from the Office of the President
could not be taken to mean termination from the service, and that
Undersecretary of DepED.21
Undersecretary.
14
to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
to a position at least commensurate to your Career
Executive Service (CES) rank.
stating that since the Appellant was being moved from the DepED,
the DOLE.
on the pleadings and evidence filed, and requesting that the date of
November 2005.
15
51. Without awaiting action on the said Motion, Appellant,
holding that:
26 These are among the grounds for a motion for reconsideration stated under
Section 40 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
27 Dissenting Opinion, p. 19.
16
GROUNDS
I.
II.
III.
DISCUSSION
I.
17
54. However, recognizing that the Order subject of the
18
the President, without miscarriage of administrative justice.29 It is
however, a patent flaw which even law students can easily detect.
that review of all actions of such office fall within the exclusive
19
persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to
apply and to decide in accordance with the standards
laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law. The administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a
judicial manner an act which is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power to
act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably
necessary for the performance of the executive or
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out
their quasi-judicial functions the administrative
officers or bodies are required to investigate facts
or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings,
weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them
as basis for their official action and exercise of
discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of
specific persons are affected it is elementary that in
the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process
must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.
(Emphasis supplied)
Majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before
33 Appellees Comment, p. 3.
34 1987 Constitution, Article IX (B), Section 3.
20
it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution.35
provides:
21
Appellants appeal is not novel to this Honorable Commission. In
II.
Majority discussed the merits of the case but incorrectly ruled that
A. Appellants appointment as
DepED Undersecretary is not
coterminous.
---------------------------------------------------------
22
coterminous with the appointing authority, are attached to
Appellees Comment.
coterminous untenable.
23
Constitution; that he will bear true faith and allegiance
to it; obey the laws, legal orders and decrees
promulgated by duly constituted authorities; will well
and faithfully discharge to the best of his ability the
duties of the office or position upon which he is about
to enter, and that he voluntarily assumes the
obligation imposed by his oath of office, without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Copies of the
oath shall be deposited with the Civil Service
Commission and the National Archives. (Emphasis
supplied)
24
Mr. Luz left government service in 1992 and
was appointed to his present position on November 12,
2002.
43 Majority Opinion, p. 4.
44 Annex B hereof.
25
B. Appellant is fully qualified for the
position of Undersecretary.
----------------------------------------------------
26
its Resolution No. 54546 and in the 21 September 2005 letter-reply
46 Annex B of the Appeal. In Resolution No. 545, the CESB restored the CESO
Rank III of Appellant.
47 Annex F of the Appeal. In the 21 September 2005 letter-response of the
27
than those expressly stated in the Qualifications Standards
Manual.
career executive service pertains only to rank and not to the office
status or security of tenure pertains only to the CES, but not to the
28
81. The Majoritys reliance on the aforesaid cases is
succinctly explained:
82. The CESB clarified this shift from the rule prevailing
during the time of Bacal and Roco to its new policy in Resolution
x x x xxx xxx
29
WHEREAS, in the case of Secretary of Justice vs.
Serafin Cuevas vs. Bacal (G.R. No. 139382 dated
December 6, 2000), the Supreme Court ruled that
security of tenure in the career executive service is
thus acquire with respect to rank and not to position
and that the guarantee of security of tenure to the
members of the CES does not extend to the particular
positions to which they maybe appointed a concept
which is applicable only to first and second-level
employees in the civil service but to the rank to
which they are appointed by the President;
30
xxx xxx x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
pointed out, to apply the Bacal and Roco rulings to the case at
hand would only result in injustice. Had the rules not been
injustice.
III.
31
certain requirements laid down in CESB Resolution No. 548 s.
2004, thus:
requisites:
32
d. It must be effected only upon the availability of a
corresponding position.
Appellant.
head and with only two (2) undersecretaries (one of whom acts as
33
public service is within the sound discretion of the President. But
Appellant also agrees with the lone dissenter that the appointing
Valmores) is instructive:
reassignment.
34
Appellants reassignment effectively results in a floating status, if
not a reduction in rank or salary.
the DOLE, does not specify the position to which Appellant will be
This especially so since the Appellant would then find his situation
35
94. The Majoritys contention does not hold water. First, as
B. Appellants reassignment is
politically motivated and tainted
with bad faith.
----------------------------------------------------
motive.69
68 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, G.R. No. L-17509, January 30,
1970).
69 Majority Opinion, p. 9.
36
are not available, hence the post-dated checks. The Palace
demands blind obedience, and this the Appellant could not give.
oath of office.
transfer back to the PSF the three (3) checks supposedly for
37
Congressman Diaz. The timing betrays Malacaang s political
2005, i.e. ten (10) days after the issuance of the termination letter,
sanction such dismissal tainted by bad faith. Just like any other
38
sufficient cause.72 As this Honorable Commission has consistently
ruled, (t)he authority (to transfer employees) under the law is not
separated from service the day after his public exposes on the
72 Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. vs. Gramaje, G.R. No.
39
undermine the campaign to encourage the public,
including those in the civil service, to expose and
denounce venality in government.
political pressure.
40
PRAYER
prayed that:
aside;
as illegal; and
prayed for.
ROWENA V. GUANZON
PTR No. 01321430, 1/17/04, Cadiz City
IBP Lifetime 1020636, 8/20/04, Bacolod
Roll No. 33534
DAMCELLE S. TORRES
PTR NO. 4181522/1-03-2006/ Makati
IBP NO. 665395/1-05-2006 Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 49400
41
MAE NIA REYES
PTR No. 7358436 / 1-31-06 / Q.C.
IBP No. 646026 / 1-31-06 / Q.C.
Roll of Attorney No. 151262
Copy furnished:
EXPLANATION
42