Adalim v. Taniñas
Personnel Actions
Lim was proclaimed Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar, which brought
Adalim to file an election protest. The RTC affirmed and ruled that the
latter is the winning candidate. During the pendency of Lim’s appeal, the
latter continued to hold office in the municipal building. However, on
October 2005, while the case was still pending, Adalim issued a
memorandum directing all municipal employees to submit their Daily
Time Records (DTRs); otherwise, they would not be paid their salaries.
Respondents failed to submit their DTRs. Hence, they were dropped
from the roll of employees for failure to submit their DTRs which was
considered absence without official leave (AWOL). The Court ruled that
respondent employees did not commit AWOL. Despite the unresolved
mayoralty issue in Taft, Eastern Samar, respondent employees were
continuously performing their functions in the municipal building during
the period that they were declared on AWOL. Hence, respondent
employees should be reinstated and paid back salaries.
Gaminde v. COA
Gaminde was appointed by the President as a Commissioner of the CSC
from June 11, 1993 to February 2, 1999. However, when she inquired the
Office of the President as regards the expiration of her term, the legal
counsel advised her that instead of Feb. 2, 1999, her term will expire on
Feb. 2, 2000. On Feb 18, 1999, General Counsel of COA issued an
opinion stating that Gaminde’s term expired on Feb. 2, 1999.
Subsequently, CSC Resident Auditor Flovitas Felipe issued a Notice of
Disallowance, disallowing in audit the salaries and emoluments of
Gaminde and her co-terminus staff effective February 2, 1999. However,
the Court ruled that even if the term of office of Gaminde expired on
February 2, 1999, she served as de-facto officer in good faith until
February 2, 2000. Therefore, COA erred in disallowing in audit such
salary and other emoluments. Gaminde and her co-terminus staff are
entitled to receive their salary and other emoluments for actual service
rendered.
XIII.
A. Disciplinary Action and Preventive Suspension
Beja, Sr. v. CA
Beja, Sr. was charged with six administrative offenses including fraud
against PPA. He was also placed under preventive suspension pursuant
to Sec. 41 of P.D. No. 807 by the PPA General Manager. Petitioner
contends that the PPA Board of Directors and not the PPA General
Manager is the proper disciplining authority. The Court held that
preventive suspension, imposed during the pendency of an administrative
investigation, is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of
precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for
obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the
same is being investigated. The PPA general manager is the disciplining
authority who may, by himself and without the approval of the PPA
Board of Directors, subject a respondent in an administrative case to
preventive suspension.
B. Transfer
De Guzman, Jr. v, COMELEC
Petitioners assail the validity of Sec. 44 of RA 8189 (The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996) since it allegedly undermines the authority of
COMELEC to appoint its own officials and employees. However, the
Court ruled that Sec. 44 establishes a guideline for the COMELEC to
follow. Said section provides the criterion or basis for the reassignment
or transfer of an election officer and does not deprive the COMELEC of
its power to appoint, and maintain its authority over its officials and
employees. As a matter of fact, the questioned COMELEC resolutions
and directives illustrate that it is still the COMELEC which has the
power to reassign and transfer its officials and employees. But as a
government agency tasked with the implementation and enforcement of
election laws, the COMELEC is duty bound to comply with the laws
passed by Congress.
 C. Detail reassignment. Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or
CSC V. Yu salary violate an employee’s security of tenure, which is assured by the
Dr. Castillo was detailed in the DOH Regional Office due to the refusal Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Omnibus Civil
of Governor Salapuddin of Basilan to accept the former as the incumbent Service Rules and Regulations. Security of tenure covers not only
Provincial Health Officer (PHO) II of Basilan in lieu of the devolution employees removed without cause, but also cases of unconsented
program. transfers and reassignments, which are tantamount to illegal/constructive
removal.
Detail. A detail is the movement of an employee from one agency to
E. Demotion
another without the issuance of an appointment and shall be allowed,
F. Promotion
only for a limited period in the case of employees occupying
CSC v. Dela Cruz
professional, technical and scientific positions. If the employee believes
Respondent Dela Cruz was promoted from Check Pilot II in ATO to
that there is no justification for the detail, he may appeal his case to the
Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer by the CSC. However,
Commission. Pending appeal, the decision to detail the employee shall be
Calamba protested against the promotional appointment of respondent
executory unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. (EO 292)
because respondent allegedly did not meet the four-year managerial and
supervisory requirement for said position. However, the Court held that
Dr. Castillo’s position as PHO II of Basilan was left vacant because the
such promotion was valid because prior to the said promotion,
latter chose her reabsorption to the DOH Regional Office. Hence, Dr.
respondent held other several positions in ATO to which considering all,
Yu’s appointment to the position of PHO II is valid and, consequently,
definitely met the minimum supervisory experience required of
she acquired a vested right to its re-classified designation – Chief of
respondent for the position. Also, respondent’s promotional appointment
Hospital II.
was in accordance to petitioner’s selection process, i.e. screenings, oral
and written examinations. In the appointment of division chiefs, as in this
D. Reassignment
case, the power to appoint rests on the head of the department. Sufficient
Republic v. Pacheo
if not plenary discretion should be granted to those entrusted with the
Pacheo was reassigned as Assistant Chief, Legal Division from RR7 in
responsibility of administering the offices concerned. They are in a
Quezon City to RR4 in San Fernando, Pampanga. She contends that such
position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of the office
reassignment is invalid because it was merely intended to harass and
vacated. Not only is the appointing authority the officer primarily
force her out of the BIR in the guise of exigencies of the revenue service.
responsible for the administration of the office, he is also in the best
In sum, she considered her transfer from Quezon City to Pampanga as
position to determine who among the prospective appointees can
amounting to a constructive dismissal. The Court ruled that while a
efficiently discharge the functions of the position.
temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even
without the employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer
Next-in-rank Rule
is a preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away
Panis v. CSC
from his permanent position, or when it is designed to indirectly
Petitioner Panis protested the appointment of private respondent Veloso
terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer violates the
as Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration of CCMC. Panis
security of tenure of those in Civil Service. The lateral movement of
contends that the appointment disregarded the seniority and next-in-rank
Pacheo as Assistant Chief, Legal Division from Quezon City to San
rules of civil service as he was next-in-rank to the contested position.
Fernando, Pampanga within the same agency is undeniably a
However, the Court ruled that the "next in rank" rule specifically applies
only in cases of promotion. This case involves a new office and a
position created in the course of a valid reorganization. The concept of
"next in rank" does not impose any mandatory or peremptory
requirement to appoint the person occupying the next lower position in
the occupational group of the office. What the Civil Service Law and the
Administrative Code of 1987 provide is that if a vacancy is filled up by
the promotion, the person holding the position next in rank thereto "shall
be considered for promotion". In other words, one who is "next in rank"
to a vacancy is given preferential consideration for promotion to the
vacant position, but it does not necessarily follow that he alone and no
one else can be appointed. There is no vested right granted the next in
rank nor a ministerial duty imposed on the appointing authority to
promote the holder to the vacant position.
Abila v. CSC
Private respondent Eleria protested against the appointment of Abila as
Administrative Officer IV by the Quezon City Mayor. She contends that
since she was Administrative Officer III, she was next in rank to the
position. The Merit System Protection Board ruled in favor of Eleria, on
appeal, CSC affirmed in toto. The Court, however, held that CSC cannot
revoke the petitioner’s appointment because it would be tantamount to
encroachment to the discretionary authority of the Quezon City Mayor.
The next-in-rank rule invoked by respondent Commission to justify its
choice of respondent Eleria over petitioner Abila, applies only where a
vacancy is filled by promotion, a process which denotes a scalar ascent
of an officer to another position higher either in rank or salary.
Cotiangco v. Province of Biliran
In this case, the Court held that petitioners erroneously insisted on the
application of the "next in rank" rule in claiming that they should have
been appointed to the available positions after the reorganization. The
"next in rank rule" specifically applies only to promotions and not to
positions created in the course of a valid reorganization. Apart from the
fact that the "next in rank" rule only gives preference to the person
occupying the position next in rank to a vacancy, it does not by any
means give him exclusive right to be appointed to the said vacancy.
Indeed, the appointing authority is vested with sufficient discretion to
appoint a candidate, as long as the latter possesses the minimum
qualifications under the law.
XIV. Separation from the Service
A. Resignation
Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvana
A dishonesty case was filed against Respondent by petitioner.
Respondent then resigned from petitioner. Resignation to be effective
must be accepted by competent authority, either in terms or by something
tantamount to an acceptance, such as the appointment of the successor.
A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is
accepted, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of
Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code. The final or conclusive act of a
resignation's acceptance is the notice of acceptance.
Republic v. Singun
Petitioner maintains that respondent’s resignation was complete because
all the elements of a complete and operative resignation were present. On
the other hand, respondent claims that his resignation was not complete
because there was no valid acceptance of his offer to resign since he was
not duly informed of its acceptance. The Court affirmed CA that
respondent’s resignation was incomplete and inoperative because the
latter was not notified of the acceptance of his resignation. And since
there was no acceptance yet of the resignation, the same can still be
withdrawn. Resignation maybe withdrawn before its acceptance.
Estrada v. Desierto
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should
be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her
oath as the 14th President of the Republic. Resignation is a factual
question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to
resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The
validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to
form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied.
As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. The
intent to resign is clear when Estrada said “Ayoko na masyado nang
masakit.” Ayoko na are words of resignation. Hence, there was a valid
resignation made by Petitioner.
B. Abandonment of Office
Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres, Catanduanes v. CA
Although a resignation is not complete without an acceptance thereof by
the proper authority, an office may still be deemed relinquished through
voluntary abandonment which needs no acceptance. Abandonment has
been defined as the voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder,
with the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof.
There are 2 essential elements of abandonment: 1. an intention to
abandon and 2. an overt act by which intention is carried on. These
elements are found in this case.
C. Dismissal/Removal from office
Bautista v. Negado
Among the different acts of misconduct for which a civil service
employee may be investigated and/or punished by the chief of a bureau
or office under section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code is
dishonesty. If a Government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty
of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are
not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office.
Hernandez v. Villegas
Whether or not Villegas’ removal from office as Director for Security is
valid. The Court ruled in the negative. "No officer or employee in the
Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause." (Phil.
Const., Art. XII, sec. 4) Villegas' removal, is, therefore, concededly
without cause. It is to be understood of course that officials and
employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so
long as confidence in them endures. The termination of their official
relation can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in
that case their cessation from office involves no removal but merely the
expiration of the term of office — two different causes for the
termination of official relations recognized in the Law of Public Officers.
But the point is that as long as confidence in them endures — and it has
been shown that it has been lost in this case — the incumbent is entitled
to continue in office.
Office of the Court Admin v. Grageda
An administrative proceeding was instituted against Judge Gregada as
regards certain infractions he made during his tenure of office. However,
Judge Grageda made a compulsory retirement even before the admin
proceeding was filed. The Court dismissed the admin case against him.
His retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant
administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office.
Balasbas v. Monayao
Petitioner Balasbas accused Respondent Monayao of fraud, dishonesty,
misrepresentation. Petitioner contends that dishonesty is a serious
offense that it is punishable by dismissal. And, contrary to the
pronouncements of the CSC and CA, dishonesty which justifies
dismissal from the service need not be committed in the course of the
performance of duty by the public officer or employee. The Court held
that respondent’s supposed dishonest acts and misrepresentations
committed in relation to a land dispute arising from her private dealings
cast doubt on her fitness to discharge her responsibilities as a public
official. If it is true that respondent caused the execution of a forged or
falsified deed of sale in 1992 in order to transfer the disputed portion of
the property to her children, then she committed a dishonest act even as
she is enjoined to adhere at all times to law, morality, and decency in her
private and professional life. “Dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal,
need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty” by the
public officer, for it “inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or
employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the
service. But in this case, Petitioner’s contentions were only mere
allegations unsupported by substantial evidence. Denied.
Remolona v. CSC
Remolona was dismissed from government office by CSC for dishonesty
regarding his eligibility as a teacher. (He faked his eligibility so he can
be with his wife). The issue is whether a civil service employee can be
dismissed from the government service for an offense which is not work-
related or which is not connected with the performance of his official that a valid and bona fide abolition of an office denies to the incumbent
duty. It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense the right to security of tenure. However, in this case, the renaming and
punishable by dismissal for the first offense. And the rule is that restructuring of the PGH and its component units cannot give rise to a
dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the valid and bona fide abolition of the position of the PGH Director. This is
course of the performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale because where the abolished office and the offices created in its place
for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is have similar functions, the abolition lacks good faith.
guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of
character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to
continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well,
because by reason of his government position, he is given more and
ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men,
even against offices and entities of the government other than the office
where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his
grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared
to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of
an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty
inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in
office and the discipline and morale of the service. The principle is that
when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the
public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in
the government.

D. Retirement
E. Abolition of Office
U.P. Board of Regents v. Rasul
Court Ruling: Appointees of the UP Board of Regents enjoy security of
tenure during their term of office. Moreover, it is clear from the record
that PGH itself was not abolished in the reorganization plan approved by
the UP Board of Regents. The PGH was merely renamed “UP-PGH
Medical Center and some of its functions and objects were expanded or
consolidated. The UP-PGH Medical Center is essentially the same as
PGH hence, the Medical Center Director will be performing duties very
similar to the present PGH director. It cannot be invoked to sustain the
argument that respondent is not entitled to security of tenure. It is true