This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ADJUDICATION BUREAU, Office of the Ombudsman, petitioners, vs. NESTOR S. VALEROSO, FACTS: Nestor Valeroso, the respondent, then occupying the position of Director II at the Bureau of Internal Revenue was charged with Perjury and Dishonesty, Flasification of Official Documents and Conduct prejudicial to the Best interest of the Service by the Fact finding and intelligence bureau of the office of the ombudsman. Such accusations were due to the petitioner’s failure to disclose his ownership of several properties and unexplained increase in net worth. This placed the petitioner under preventive suspension for six months without pay. The respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari in order to nullify the preventive suspension against him. The petition is instituted on the ground that the element of strong evidence of guilt was lacking, and that due process was denied when he was not informed about the nature of the charges against him. Issue: Whether or not the preventive suspension imposed by the Ombudsman is valid? Held: No. There is no dispute as to the power of the Ombudsman to place a public officer charged with an administrative offense under preventive suspension. That power is clearly confined under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which reads: Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. Clear it is from the above that the law sets forth two conditions that must be satisfied to justify the issuance of an order of preventive suspension pending an investigation, to wit: 1. The evidence of guilt is strong; and 2. Either of the following circumstances co-exist with the first requirement: a. The charge involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; b. The charge would warrant removal from the service; or c. The respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. Here, respondent was charged with dishonesty, among other administrative and criminal charges, and the Ombudsman particularly found strong evidence to support said charge on the specified ground of 1.
"non-disclosure of assets and business interests." Questions on the strength of the evidence to support the preventive suspension order are squarely within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The rule is that whether the evidence of guilt is strong, as required in Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into account the evidence before him. In the very words of Section 24, the Ombudsman may preventively suspend a public official pending investigation if "in his judgment" the evidence presented before him tends to show that the official's guilt is strong and if the further requisites enumerated in Section 24 are present. The Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Ombudsman on this matter, absent clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Ombudsman. Moreover, the charge of dishonesty is a grave offense which, if duly proven, merits the penalty of dismissal from the service on commission of the first infraction.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, vs. PEDRO O. DACOYCOY, PARDO, J.: FACTS: On November 29, 1995, George P. Suan, a Citizens Crime Watch VicePresident, Allen Chapter, Northern Samar, filed with the Civil Service Commission, Quezon City, a complaint against Pedro O. Dacoycoy, for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism. The Civil Service Regional Office No. 8, Tacloban City, filed charges against him. Accordingly, the Civil Service Commission promulgated its resolution finding no substantial evidence to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct. However, the Civil Service Commission found respondent Pedro O. 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. respondent Dacoycoy filed a motion for reconsideration; however, the Civil Service Commission denied the motion. respondent Dacoycoy filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction1 to set aside the Civil Service Commission’s resolutions.the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the Civil Service Commission, Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N there is nepotism. YES. The law defines nepotism as follows: “Sec. 59. Nepotism. – (1) 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.
EUSTAQUIO C. L-89 February 1. it was Mr. After that period. Clearly. Mr. (c) physicians. VICENTE G. In fact. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE. who was the school administrator. Both positions are career positions. ISSUE: W/N he is entitled to salaries during the period of suspension HELD: The Court ruled that the preventive suspension of civil service employees charged with dishonesty. 1940. ANDRES SANTA MARIA. Daclag to recommend the appointment of first level employees under his immediate supervision.“As used in this Section. AGATON EVANGELISTA. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS G. c) chief of the bureau or office. his son Ped stated in his position description form that his father was “his next higher supervisor”. The investigation was concluded before the lapse of 90-day suspension and private respondents were found guilty as charged. (5) gross insubordination. It cannot be considered unjustified even if later the charges are dismissed so as to justify the payment of salaries to the employee concerned. b) recommending authority. Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. AMADO V. it was respondent Dacoycoy who certified that “funds are available for the proposed appointment of Rito Dacoycoy” and even rated his performance as “very satisfactory”. Dacoycoy. Head of the Vocational Department of the BCAT. and Elizabeth Somebang were ordered suspended for six months The MSPB denied their appeal. Consequently. vs. On the other hand. Virgilia Bandigas. allowances and other benefits during the period of their suspension beyond the 90-day period of preventive suspension although they were found guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations for having been absent without leave during the teachers’ strike and were reprimanded. In the last two mentioned situations. The circumvention of the ban on nepotism is quite obvious.” Under the definition of nepotism. there are four situations covered. they were administratively charged with (1) grave misconduct. the employee shall be automatically reinstated. GERARDO ANGELES. BALAGTAS. Petitioner contended that the continued suspension of private respondents was due to their appeal. petitioner claimed that private respondents are considered under preventive suspension during the period of their appeal. (b) teachers. (2) gross neglect of duty. although employees who are preventively suspended pending investigation are not entitled to the payment of their salaries even if they are exonerated. They were slated to assume office for a term of three years. He authorized Mr. (2) The following are exempted from the operations of the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed in a confidential capacity. hence. Moreover. However. Respondent Nicanor Margallo was ordered dismissed from the service while respondents Amparo Abad. however. thus. even if the investigation is not finished. To sustain the government’s theory would be to make the administrative decision not only executory but final and executory. (6) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. he is guilty of nepotism absence without leave (AWOL). during the teachers' strikes. It would be unjust to deprive him of his pay as a result of the immediate execution of the decision against him and continue to do so even after it is shown that he is innocent of the charges for which he was suspended. Allen. However. it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is. and DELIA C. The appellate court ruled that private respondents were entitled to the payment of their salaries. Jaime Daclag. Respondent Dacoycoy is the Vocational School Administrator. or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. Facts: Petitioners were elected as members of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila in the general elections held on December 10. DIÑO. the unseen but obvious hand of respondent Dacoycoy was behind the appointing or recommending authority in the appointment of his two sons. To constitute a violation of the law. it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office. 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. 1946 JOSE TOPACIO NUENO. they did not report for work. Northern Samar.petitioners. Clearly. In 1945 due to physical impossibility of conducting a special election the President of the Commonwealth GLORIA VS CA FACTS: Private respondents are public school teachers. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. That in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made to the Commission. the government should not be held answerable for payment of their salaries. To our mind. (4) refusal to perform official duty. Because respondent is penalized before his sentence is confirmed that he should be paid his salaries in the event he is exornerated. who recommended the appointment of Rito. Then Mr. they are not entitled to the payment of their salaries during their suspension. respondents. Unquestionably. CRUZ. and placed under preventive suspension. oppression or grave misconduct or neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil Service Law.R. the word “relative” and members of the family referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. the Court did not agree with the petitioner that they are not entitled to compensation for the period of their suspension pending appeal if eventually they are found innocent. and d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. It is true that he did not appoint or recommend his two sons to the positions of driver and utility worker in the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. For this reason. HERNANDEZ and FELICIDAD MANUEL. the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification as to the computation of the salaries awarded to private respondents. one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following: a) appointing authority. However the elections of 1943 did not push through as the city was then under Japanese occupation. and (7) . and (d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Provided. (3) gross violation of Civil Service Law Rules and Regulations and reasonable office regulations. No. It is limited to ninety (90) days unless the delay in the conclusion of the investigation is due to the employee concerned. On various dates in September and October 1990.
S. President Corazon C. U. was harmless and inconsequential as the two (2) discounted Geneva-New York-Geneva tickets for herself and her daughter were in fact inseparable.597 for herself and her daughter Pia. 2. and after the expiration of their term of office on December 31. The contention that petitioners are entitled to continue in office because they have not completely served for three years due to the war. and therefore respondents’ appointments are null and void. she used for the Geneva-New York-Geneva portion of her trip the two (2) discounted tickets costing only SFr. 1987. In the case at bar. and the person so appointed shall hold the office until the permanent successor has been elected or appointed to fill the office for the unexpired term. 1987. our lawmakers have followed the policy and practice of those States that provide expressly in their statutes for holding over of provincial. Petitioner Rosalinda de Perio-Santos. non-cancellable and nonrefundable. 1987. 357 of the Election Code.597 which she spent for the Geneva to New York. For the simple reason that the term of an office must be distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. 1. Thus. Aguino.R. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent.appointed the 6 respondents as members of the Board. intransferable.399 for the Government. thereby effecting savings of SFr. to fill the vacancy shall be elected in a special election. they have no right to bring the present action and impugn the validity of the latter's appointments.A. is untenable. the DFA approved her application for a leave of absence with pay from April 27 to May 1. 673 represented the cost of her daughter's portion of the ticket. respondents. The Court believes however that she did not intend to falsify or conceal the truth when she filed a claim for the refund of the total cost of her discounted tickets (SFr. in effect one whole fare only.1. the successor. and New York to Geneva portion of her trip. a career service officer with the rank of Chief of Mission II and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. because of failure to hold the regular election on the second Tuesday of December 1943 and the special election. after the expiration of their term. and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. after appreciating certain mitigating circumstances in her favor. and consequently to elect the would-be incumbents. As the petitioners are not entitled to hold-over or continue. 357) the President had. . reimbursement of only SFr. to the position of Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations with station in Geneva. the power to appoint the respondents or any other. in the offices claimed by them and held now by the respondents. the penalty of reprimand with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. or (4) his election is not confirmed for disloyalty. Instead of buying an economy roundtrip ticket. J. or (2) results in a failure to elect. the offices of members of the Municipal Board of Manila became vacant from January 1. 2.996. was appointed on July 24. 122 of the Office of the President. 1986. 58/88 dated April 27. for purposes of the discount. in case of failure to elect. the same section 16 empowers the President to appoint a person to fill such temporary vacancy or interregnum. Her claim for the whole discounted fare was whether or not petitioner was guilty of dishonesty. Regarding the hold-over principle. And during the interregnum or temporary vacancy from January 1. since there was a physical impossibility of holding a special election. the provisions relating to said principle have been deemed repealed by the passage of Commonwealth Act No. to fill said temporary vacancy or vacancies. 1944.1. On September 21. 1944. she requested. Issue: Whether or not petitioners are entitled to hold over their positions until such time when their successors shall have qualified and elected? Held: No. petitioner. the DFA required her to refund the amount representing her daughter's round-trip ticket since DFA received a copy of the "facture" from the travel agency showing that the amount of SFr. The President affirmed Assignment Order No. The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of light. From the foregoing it clearly appears that petitioners are not entitled to hold-over. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds the office. Petitioners then instituted this action against respondents on the ground that the petitioners having been elected as members of the Municipal Board of Manila in the general election held in December 1940 for three years. city and municipal officers as provided in the Revised Administrative Code. or (5) he fails to qualify for reason of non-eligibility of other reasons. EN BANC. under section 16 (a) of the same Act. their term of office has not yet expired because they have not served for said period due to the Japanese occupation. 1987.1.597). or (3) the officer-elect dies before assumption of office. Her failure to disclose the fact that her discounted tickets included the fare for her child.: FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari* seeking to set aside Administrative Order No. until the said special election is held and new members elected or. Switzerland. and that the sum of SFr. There is no principle. 950. appointed by the President (under section 16 [c] and [d] of Commonwealth Act No. by her Excellency. vs. and received. No 94070 April 10. G. However. law or doctrine by which the term of an office may be extended by reason of war. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CATALINO MACARAIG and SECRETARY RAUL MANGLAPUS. even assuming that they had not discharged the duties of their office during the Japanese occupation of Manila. if the President does not exercise his discretion to fill the vacancy in the last three cases (3). ISSUES: 1. GRIÑO-AQUINO. the legislature expressly intended that there shall be no hold-over of the previous occupant of the elective seat prior to assumption of office of his successor. 1988 of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs recalling the petitioner to the home office from her post as permanent representative to the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations (MISUNPHIL. No. whether or not the order of recall was invalid. 1987. and (b) 1 billet enfant-Geneva/New York/Geneva SFr. for short) in Geneva. They left Geneva for New York en route to Havana on April 15. On April 6. petitioner received instructions from the home office directing her to proceed to Havana as a member of the Philippine delegation to the UNCTAD G-77 Preparatory Conference from April 20-26.597 was in payment of (a) 1 billet adulte-Geneva/New York/Geneva SFr. Before they could leave Geneva. On the same day. The term of office is not affected by the hold-over. 673. 1943. petitioner sought a leave of absence from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to spend the Easter Holidays in New York. Switzerland. Section 16 of the said law states that whenever (1) the election fails to take place on the date fixed by law (as in the case at bar). 1992 ROSALINDA DE PERIO SANTOS. They also contended that in view of the foregoing. 1. they are entitled to hold-over or continue in office until their successors are elected and qualified. Instead of claiming reimbursement for SFr. at his discretion. finding the petitioner guilty of dishonesty and meting upon her. HELD: 1. (4) and (5) by appointment.
A stringent interpretation of courtesy resignations must therefore be observed.." After the presidential acceptance of said "resignations. Aquino a letter which reads that he hereby places his position at President Aquino’s disposal. On July 21. 78957. the Court is not disposed to disturb the order of the DFA and the Office of the President recalling the petitioner to the home office. declared to be inoperative or without legal force and effect. Rather. as provided in Section 260 of P. effective immediately. Article III thereof provides: xxx SEC. et al. renounce and relinquish the office. 6. Verily. and its acceptance by competent and lawful authority. 1568.based on the fact that her daughter's ticket was inseparable from her own fare. vs. however.” Petitioner Ortiz moved for the reconsideration of said resolution. except in case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances. thus: (b) Tour of duty — (1) The tour of duty of a foreign service officer at any post shall be four (4) years commencing on the date of his arrival at the post. hence. Agpalo and Layosa that the President had "accepted. No. l568 which provides that: when the Auditor General or the Chairman or any Member of the Commission on Elections retires from the service for having completed his term of office xxx Provided." On March 5. but the same was denied by the COMELEC. Hence. however. it manifests his submission to the will of the political authority and the appointing power. the Freedom Constitution was promulgated. express or implied. 1986. To justify their petitions for retirement and their requests for payment of retirement benefits. who referred the same to COMELEC. as amended. Resignation is defined as the act of giving up or the act of an officer by which he declines his office and renounces the further right to use it. 1992. with regrets. their respective resignations. this petition. 1578 ("Instituting the Administrative Code of 1978'). the Deputy Executive Secretary conveyed the information to Commissioners Marquinez. he has rendered not less than twenty years of service in the government. 647) was neither fair nor reasonable. Petitioner's case should be placed in the same category as that of an official holding a primarily confidential position whose tenure ends upon his superior's loss . petitioner sent President Corazon C. 146 SCRA 446. receive the retirement and other benefits accruing thereunder. It should be remembered that said letter was actually a response to Proclamation No. having rendered only sixteen years of service to the government. Ortiz. 1986. 1568. 1986 that he was placing his position at the disposal of the President. Issue: Whether or not a constitutional official whose "courtesy resignation" was accepted by the President of the Philippines during the effectivity of the Freedom Constitution may be entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 168. He did not categorically state therein that he was unconditionally giving up his position. 1986 their respective applications for retirement. 1578 ENTITLED 'INSTITUTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1978. she had already served the minimum one-year period of service when her recall on April 22. a "courtesy resignation" can lot properly be interpreted as resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a reflection of a public official's intention to surrender his position. 1986 when she called on all appointive public officials to tender their "courtesy resignation" as a "first step to restore confidence in public administration. Any public officer or employee separated from the service as a result of the reorganization effected under this Proclamation shall. excluding her daughter's portion (SFr.D. 1578 was expressly repealed on May 5. he shall receive an annuity payable monthly during the residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he was receiving on the date of retirement. 2. Assignments and Transfers — A Foreign Service Officer may be assigned by the Secretary to serve in the Department or in a diplomatic or consular post abroad: Provided.R. 1578 was one of those unpublished "secret" decrees which this Court in Tañada. incapacity or resignation. Her reassignment to Manila did not have to be explained and justified by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs nor the President of the Philippines MARIO D. We cannot presume such intention from his statement in his letter of March 5. equity and justice demand that he should be deemed to have completed his term albeit much ahead of the date stated in his appointment paper. the Government's offer to shoulder only the petitioner's portion of the discounted fare (SFr. if entitled under the laws then in force. There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that her tour of duty in Geneva was for four (4) years.D. P. 950). Petitioner appealed to the Chairman of the COA. 708." new Commissioners composed the COMELEC. The respondents posit the view that petitioner's "voluntary resignation" prevented the completion of his term of office. P. et al. 1988 came. No. June 28. Tuvera.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and COMMISSION ON AUDIT G.'" The applicable law therefore is Section 6. as amended.A. "The Foreign Service Act of the Philippines. The curtailment of his term. On March 25. From the foregoing it is evident that petitioner's "resignation" lacks the element of clear intention to surrender his position. after which he shall be transferred to another post. That in case of resignation. of R. 3. that the minimum period during which he may serve in any foreign post shall be one year and the maximum period four years. Since the petitioner had been appointed to her post on July 24. the officer or employee must show a clear intention to relinquish or surrender his position accompanied by the act of relinquishment. of the intention to surrender. The COMELEC denied the applications for retirement of the Commissioners on the ground that they were "not entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. was not acted upon. 1986. 1987. particularly in cases involving constitutional officials like the petitioner whose removal from office entails an impeachment proceeding. 1986. Their fare was indivisible. 1 which President Aquino issued on February 25. No. ORTIZ vs. he is not entitled to retirement benefits. Title III. They had to go together to be entitled to the special discount. by Executive Order No. 1988 Facts: Petitioner was appointed Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by then President Ferdinand E. therefore. and. former COMELEC Commissioners invoked Section 1 of Republic Act No. Ortiz and Marquinez submitted on July 30." enacted on June 5. As pointed out by the Solicitor General. The same. in which event he may be tranferred from one foreign post to another or to the Department by the order of the Secretary without regard to his length of service in his former post. providing that: Sec. To constitute a complete and operative act of resignation. Marcos "for a term expiring May 17. Resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form. Held: Petitioner's separation from government service as a result of the reorganization ordained by the then nascent Aquino government may not be considered a resignation within the contemplation of the law. 1952. Part B. to which Commissioners Agpalo.D. not being attributable to any voluntary act on the part of the petitioner. entitled "REPEALING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
In our jurisdiction. and relinquish the office and the acceptance by competent and lawful authority. 2001.31 A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is accepted. Some Cabinet secretaries. 149356 March 14. acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to be operative and effective. In the cases at bar. SINGUN FACTS: Singun. petitioner was plagued by problems that slowly eroded his popularity. 2000. G. the resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a given fact. wrote a resignation letter to the Hipolito. Ordonez proclaimed that such detail order is without effect since. Consequently. the Vice-President shall be the Acting President. petitioner should be considered retired from the service. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion. regional director of DTI. Without acceptance. Resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form. he signed a letter stating that he was transmitting a declaration that he was unable to exercise the powers and duties of his office and that by operation of law and the Constitution. Therefore. Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. From the beginning of his term. and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority. It also appeared that on the same day.30 Resignation to be effective must be accepted by competent authority. ISSUE Whether respondent validly resigned from DTI-RO2 effective 14 January 2000? Whether the detail order issued by Undersecretary Ordoñez effectively withdrew respondent’s resignation. As long as the resignation is clear. petitioner Joseph Estrada was elected President while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. It can be written. issued an order detailing the respondent to the Office of the Undersecretary. the senator-judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held P3. accused the petitioner. we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that respondent’s resignation was incomplete and inoperative because respondent was not notified of the acceptance of his resignation. Neither was there any indication that respondent received Director Hipolito’s 12 November 1999 Memorandum informing him of the acceptance of his resignation. undersecretary Ordonez. However. either in terms or by something tantamount to an acceptance. petitioner issued a press statement that he was leaving Malacanang Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of the nation. 20.28 To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office. It was confirmed . 1998 elections. the Armed Forces and the PNP withdrew their support to the Estrada government. Undersecretary Ordoñez also validly issued the detail order as respondent had not effectively resigned from DTI-RO2. No. renounce. HELD 1. assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs resigned from their posts. During the first stage of negotiation between Estrada and the opposition. On October 4. a longtime friend of the petitioner. 2. respondent could validly withdraw his resignation. On November 13.R. It can be implied. the resignation of the respondent was already accepted as evidenced by a memorandum the latter had issued. Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson. 2000. 2001. of the intention to surrender. NO. It can be express. 2008 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the Department of Trade and Industry. his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Until the resignation is accepted. YES. In order to have a valid resignation. The respondent contended that his resignation is without effect because Ordonez failed to issue a notice accepting his resignation and such was still revocable. during and after Jan. prior to the acceptance of the said resignation. Issues: (1) Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President (2) Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President Held: Petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a permanent disability. since respondent’s resignation was not finally and conclusively accepted as he was not duly notified of its acceptance.37 In this case. a former Chief Trade and Idustry Development Specialist in Cagayan.36 And the resignation is not effective where it was withdrawn before it was accepted. otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 23832 of the Revised Penal Code. the topic was already about a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. Daily Inquirer. After his fall from the power. It can be oral. On January 20. The Court held that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. The incumbent official would not be in a position to determine the acceptance of his resignation unless he had been duly notified therefor. resignation is nothing and the officer remains in office. ESTRADA VS DESIERTO Facts: In the May 11. the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of the petitioner. Thereafter. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after the transition period. However. On January 16. On the same day. contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before leaving Malacanang Palace. 2001 or by the totality of prior.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde. A copy of the letter was sent to Speaker Fuentebella and Senate President Pimentel on the same day. His cessation from the service entails no removal but an expiration of his term. undersecretaries.of confidence in him. The resignation of the petitioner was implied. such as the appointment of the successor. (b) an act of relinquishment. House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives to the Senate. As he is deemed to have completed his term of office. by a vote of 11-10. Resignation is a factual question. vs. During the second round of negotiation. express or implied. The expose’ immediately ignited reactions of rage.WINSTON T. The Court had an authoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner provided by the diary of Executive Sec. There was no need for Director Hipolito to accept the withdrawal of resignation since there was no valid acceptance of the application of resignation in the first place. the tender or offer to resign is revocable. however. the respondent. whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his acts and omissions before. it must be given legal effect. 2000. There was no indication that respondent received a copy of his 12 November 1999 application for leave of absence and resignation as accepted by Director Hipolito. at about 12 noon. The final or conclusive act of a resignation’s acceptance is the notice of acceptance. Angara serialized in the Phil. Petitioner. the petitioner’s legal problems appeared in clusters. there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term. On November 20.” The ruling was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the streets of the metropolis. The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form.
The judgment having become final. Respondent Court of Appeals has also pointed out correctly that the underlying principle of de facto acts is the protection of third parties and the public." The then presiding Judge Ruiz denied said motion. respondent Court's holding that even if there were a strict interpretation as to when Judge Ruiz ceased to be a member of the Judiciary although petitioners maintain that the date of his cessation from office is October 6. Petitioners likewise filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Adduce Evidence in Support of Motion" but it was denied for lack of sufficient merits. Judgment was rendered by the trial court (then presided over by Judge Vivencio Ruiz) in favor of the private respondents. express or implied. represented by Atty. and relinquish the office and the acceptance by competent and lawful authority. 1972. 1972 filed with the Clerk of Court on October 18. One of the ways of terminating official relations is by resignation. acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to be operative and effective. a public auction sale was conducted by the Sheriff who issued a Sheriff's Certificate of Sale of a Toyota Corolla taxi. and hence is a President on leave. The question is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. setting aside the execution sale on the grounds that it is defective and irregular. G. respondent Judge denied petitioner's motion. et al. Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. (3) that Judge Ruiz cannot even be considered a de facto officer after October 4 or 6. No. there must be an intention to relinquish a part of the term. still. 11 issued by the President of the Philippines. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. and if it were true that the contested order was made on September 18. Respondent Judge Alcantara granted private respondents' motion. 1972 when several orders or decisions bearing all October dates were released ahead of the order in question". 1972. It is a political issue which cannot be decided by the Court without transgressing the principle of separation of powers. without any objection constitutes a sufficient acceptance and notice of acceptance is not necessary. for damages. Thus. otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of office or position. The Court also tackled the contention of the petitioner that he is merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of the presidency. Judge Vivencio Ruiz tendered his resignation pursuant to and in compliance with Letter of Instruction No. and therefore. on the date of acceptance thereof by the President in his letter of October 6. Private respondents filed their "Motion to Annul and/or Set Aside Order. 1972 was filed and promulgated with the Clerk of Court on October 18. the seat of the presidency. setting aside the execution sale. Herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which Judge Ruiz granted. and declared as null and void the order of the former Judge Ruiz. renounce. the House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the assumption into office by Arroyo as President. their counsel of record. 1972 was filed with the Clerk of Court only on October 18. To constitute a complete and operative resignation of public office. 1972 bore October dates as attested by the certification of the Clerk of Court. 1972. (2) that the order of September 18. Ruiz ceased to be judge de jure or de facto upon acceptance of his resignation by the President of the Philippines. 1972 — to be valid and binding. It is for this reason of public interest that the Secretary (now Minister) of Justice issued Circular No. however. a writ of execution was issued and accordingly. 1972. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to reassume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears. Ruling: No. valid. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of inability. thereby . dated September 18. (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of the country. GAMBOA. restoring the validity and efficacy of the execution sale in favor of private respondents. herein petitioners filed an "Urgent Motion to Set Aside Sale on Execution" on the grounds that the execution sale was attended by fraud. for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of the nation. L-38068 September 30. and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Respondent Judge Arsenio Alcantara was appointed in his stead. (b) good faith on the part of Judge Ruiz did not exist when the order of September 18. 1972. 2001 letter of petitioner sent to Senate Pres.: Facts: Petitioners are the defendants in a civil case filed by herein private respondents with the CFI of Rizal. 1972. is correct. in favor of private respondents. 1972". 20. Later. 7 In Our jurisprudence. his acts before the official notification of the acceptance of his resignation are those of a de facto officer. or. The Senate also passed a resolution confirming the nomination of Guingona as Vice-President. Judge Ruiz received the letter of acceptance by the President. 1972. a judgment or order must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the Judge whose signature appears thereon. 1972 and officially received by Judge Ruiz on October 21. 1981 GUERRERO. Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. It must be noted that respondent Court of Appeals underscored the undeniable fact that while the President's letter of acceptance was dated October 6. 1972 because — (a) the filing of the resignation of a public officer in the proper office. why was it not released earlier than October 18. (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace. In the press release containing his final statement. The reasons stated in the questioned order were: (1) that Judge Ruiz ceased to be a member of the Judiciary on the date of his resignation that was October 4. promulgated and filed with the Clerk of Court. Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella. (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic. Despite said letter.R. Issue: Whether or not Judge Vivencio M. Subsequent thereto. 1972. and of a certificate of Public Convenience to operate 60 units of taxicabs. The inability claim is contained in the Jan. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. vs. "on account of the fact that all orders except litigated order of September 18. of the intention to surrender. a public officer cannot abandon his office or position before his resignation is accepted but the incumbent official would not be in a position to determine the acceptance of his resignation unless he has been duly notified therefor. but with the reservation about its legality. Thereafter. J. model '69. it was completely processed only on October 20. mistake and/or irregularity "so serious as to have worked a grave injustice to defendants herein. et al.by his leaving Malacanang. The Court cannot pass upon petitioner’s claim of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The aforesaid order of Judge Ruiz was then. (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. 70 dated October 13. Clearly. Jesus Suntay. directing all categories of judges and fiscals to stay in their official stations and not to depart therefrom without previous permission from the Office (referring ELISA O. accompanied by the act of relinquishment 6 and a resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form.
Later SC. Antonio has effectively relinquished his membership in the Sangguniang Bayan due to his voluntary abandonment of said post. express an intention to resume his office as member of the SB.598. Neither did he. SB of San Andres Catanduanes v. he was appointed by the President as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of San Andres and was later elected president of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC). the election for the president of Federation of the Association of Barangay Councils (FABC) was declared void by theDILG for lack of quorum and there organization in the provincial council became necessary. when Aquino succeeded him to his original position. In that capacity. he having been dismissed by the Commissioner of Civil Service for grave misconduct. with prejudice to reinstatement in the teaching service. The petitioner's removal from office was not in accordance with law.In this case. However.784. Leyte. Petitioner was charged with gross misconduct for an immoral act committed in the evening of 4 June 1948. As such.R. he worked as clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Leyte. On 16 February 1956 the Undersecretary of Education disregarded the Director's recommendation and denied the petitioner's claim on the ground that he was out of the service from 6 August 1949 to 1 March 1951. his reinstatement became a ministerial duty of the proper authority. HON.R. His overt acts. inclusive. Nenito Aquino was appointed as member of SB in replacementof Antonio. No. Being president of ABC. To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office. The fact that during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal in the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Antonio was elected bgy captain of Sapang Palay. with P140 monthly salary or P1680 annually. AGUIRRE GONZAGA-REYES.Meanwhile. This is clear when he did not simultaneously discharge the duties and obligations of both positions. Antonio wrote a letter to SB to reassume his position but it was denied on the ground that he has already resigned. there was an abandonment of office. at that time. and that funds were not available.The VP of ABC. and the payment of back salary was merely incidental to reinstatement. 1955”. However. The decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals reversing that of the Commissioner of Civil Service and absolving the petitioner from the charge was not reversed or modified by the President. CA G. J: FACTS: Augusto T. effective on his last day of duty with pay. On 26 June 1954 the Civil Service Board of Appeals reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service and acquitted him of the charge." The petitioner was suffering from "Hypertension (labile)" and the doctor advised him to take a rest.: FACTS: . Finding employment in another branch of the government does not constitute abandonment of his former position. that although the decision of the Commissioner was reversed on appeal by the Civil Service Board of Appeals. at the rate of P1680 per annum. inaction and acquiescence. GIMENEZ G. inclusive. CANONIZADO vs. It." He appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term. Caibiran. 118883January 16. Issue: Whether or not the decision of dismissal from service becomes final and executory that prohibits petitioner from receiving back salary Held: No. (b) an act of relinquishment. Antonio tendered his resignation as member of SB. L-12525 February 19. San Andres.: Facts: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Auditor General denying the petitioner's claim for back salaries.to Ministry of Justice) and to continue discharging their functions until notified of the action taken on their letters of resignation.R. therefore. No. in view of ill health he applied "for an indefinite sick leave of absence. The decision did not become final and executory. The petitioner was head teacher in Habuhab barrio school. show that Antonio had abandoned the contested office. or total of P9. J. 2001. On 14 June 1949 the Commissioner of Civil Service found him guilty and required him "to resign from the service. payment of back salaries to him during the period of removal from office was a matter of discretion. 133132. does not constitute abandonment of his former position. J. No. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring the petitioner entitled to receive and the Government bound to pay him the sum of P3. To deny him the right to collect his back salaries during such period would be tantamount to punishing him after his exoneration from the charge which caused his dismissal from the service. On 4 June 1955 the petitioner wrote to the Division Superintendent of Schools of Leyte "accepting the reinstatement offered to take effect on June 13. The appeal taken by the petitioner to the Civil Service Board of Appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service finding him guilty of grave misconduct and requiring him to resign from the service precluded the execution of the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service. silence.58.] ALEXIS C. HELD: Antonio cannot assume his previous position because although there was no effective resignation. On 14 July 1955 he wrote to the Division Superintendent of Schools of Leyte requesting payment of back salaries from 6 August 1949 to 12 June 1955. Antonio’s failure to promptly assert hisalleged right implies his loss of interest in the position. ISSUE: WON there is an effective resignation of abandonment of office. the DILG Sec. He was ordered to resign from the service with prejudice to reinstatement and by virtue thereof was prevented from exercising the functions of his position and receiving the corresponding compensation. 1960 PADILLA. February 15. appointed Antonio as temporary member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Catanduanes. became the final decision on the petitioner's case.57 [G. there is no effective resignation because there is no evidence that the resignation was accepted by any government functionary or office. His overt acts plainly show that he really meant his resignation and understood its effects FRANCISCO A. PEDRO M. TAN vs. invalidate the decision of the DILG with regard to the election of the FABC president and also the appointmentof Antonio as member of SP. and(c) an acceptance by the proper authority . 1998 Pnaganiban. ALEXANDER P.
NOTES: ABANDONMENT. the rule does not apply where there was no discharge of functions of the two offices simultaneously. FACTS: Eduardo de los Santos. while desiring and intending to hold the office. — Abandonment of an office is the voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder. HELD: No. 8551 void for being violative of petitioners' constitutional guaranteed right to security of tenure. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner's appointment constituted abandonment of his claim for reinstatement since the offices of NAPOLCOM and Inspector General of the IAS are incompatible. it must be total and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. policy determining nor highly technical at pleasure. two essential elements of abandonment: first. A city engineer does not formulate a method of action for the government or any its subdivisions. Non-user refers to a neglect to use a right or privilege or to exercise an office. while occupying one office. By accepting the position of Inspector General during the pendency of the present case — brought precisely to assail the constitutionality of his removal from the NAPOLCOM — Canonizado cannot be deemed to have abandoned his claim for reinstatement to the latter position. assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of said law. and on the 23rd of that month.R. but that which proceeds from the nature and relations of the two positions to each other as to give rise to contrariety and antagonism should one person attempt to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of one toward the incumbent of the other. Where. nonperformance of the duties of an office does not constitute abandonment where such nonperformance results from temporary disability or from involuntary failure to perform. DEFINITION. the position of city engineer is technical but not highly so. The incompatibility contemplated is not the mere physical impossibility of one person's performing the duties of the two offices due to a lack of time or the inability to be in two places at the same moment. Petitioners. He had the right to live during the pendency of his appeal and naturally the right to accept any form of employment. However. J. No. he qualified for and began to exercise the duties and functions of the position. on June 3. it springs from and is accompanied by deliberation and freedom of choice. after a summary removal. the petitioner was appointed City Engineer of Baguio on July 16. an unreasonable delay by an officer illegally removed in taking steps to vindicate his rights may constitute an abandonment of the office. Abandonment of duties is a voluntary act. accepts another incompatible with the first. In fact. after which. Gil R. we struck down the above quoted provision for being violative of petitioners' constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure. It is held that there is no question that the positions of NAPOLCOM Commissioner and Inspector General of the IAS are incompatible with each other. It is a well settled rule that he who. Nor is the position of city engineer policy-determining. With specific reference to the City Engineer of Baguio. but was compelled to do soon the strength of Section 8 of RA 8551. Canonizado did not voluntarily leave his post as Commissioner. a position that is neither confidential. His job is to execute policy. his powers and duties are carefully laid down for him be section 2557 of the Revised Administrative Code and are essentially ministerial in character. such a surrender will not be deemed an abandonment and the officer may recover the office. De Los Santos vs. L-3881. First of all. with the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof. not to make it. 1950 Tuason. Thus. Canonizado harbored no willful desire or intention to abandon his official duties. the Undersecretary of the Department of Public Works and Communications directed Santos to report to the Bureau of Public Works for another assignment. the public officer vacates it in deference to the requirements of a statute which is afterwards declared unconstitutional. petitioner Canonizado was appointed and assumed the Office of Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the Philippine National Police (PNP). but much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential. Generally speaking. Commissioners of the National Police Commission. In our decision of 25 January 2000. There must be a complete abandonment of duties of such continuance that the law will infer a relinquishment. and when the City Mayor and the other officials named as Mallare's co-defendants ignored him and paid Mallare the salary corresponding to the position. There are. appointment which was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on August 6. 1946. Mallare G. Public policy considerations dictate against allowing the same individual to perform inconsistent and incompatible duties. Finally. and with no willful desire or intention to abandon it. However. Petitioners seasonably assailed the constitutionality of the said law. ISSUE: Whether or not the President may remove a city engineer. lost no time disputing what they perceived to be an illegal removal. Abandonment may also result from an acquiescence by the officer in his wrongful removal or discharge. The respondents alleged that petitioner's appointment constituted abandonment of his claim for reinstatement since the offices of NAPOLCOM and Inspector General of the IAS are incompatible. On June 1. a person holding a public office may abandon such office by nonuser or acquiescence. In order to constitute abandonment of office. with the effectivity of the law. Santos refused to vacate the office. A city engineer is not required nor is he supposed to possess a technical skill or training in . petitioners instituted the current action on 15 April 1998. an intention to abandon and second an overt or "external" act by which the intention is carried into effect. Meanwhile. The removal of petitioners from their positions by virtue of a constitutionally infirm act necessarily negates a finding of voluntary relinquishment. Adiong and two other generals. and that acceptance of a second position pending appeal does not constitute abandonment. HELD: NO. therefore. by the President. August 31. Every appointment implies confidence. ipso facto vacates the first office and his title is thereby terminated without any other act or proceeding. a few weeks after RA 8551 took effect on 6 March 1998. Canonizado. 1950. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. Prohibiting petitioner from accepting a second position during the pendency of his petition would be to unjustly compel him to bear the consequences of an unconstitutional act which under no circumstances can be attributed to him. Mallare was extended an ad interim appointment by the President to the same position.This is a motion for reconsideration to the Court's decision declaring Section 8 of Republic Act No. for instance. Pureza. together with petitioners Edgar Dula Torres and Rogelio A. he commenced these proceedings. were removed from office and in their stead appointed respondents Aguirre. pending appeal.
117 all incumbent officials/personnel of DECS were on hold-over status unless advised otherwise. It is subject to the limitations that it be exercised in good faith. It is a paramount principle in Public Officers' Law that the power to abolish public offices vested in the legislature is not absolute. Nevertheless. there can be no objection to a law abolishing the useless or non-essential items. supra that an abolition which is not bona-fide but is merely a device to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees is null and void. The motion for reconsideration remained unacted upon. 78053.. and cannot.reconsideration be deferred pending resolution of the instant petition." In addition to the pleadings filed. together with the entire personnel of the DECS. MENDOZA vs. 5) Whether or not the separation of the petitioner from office allegedly resulting from the reorganization is valid. PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS. the duties of a city engineer are eminently administrative in character and could very well be discharged by non-technical men possessing executive ability. G. LOURDES R. . the President may not remove the city engineer at pleasure as Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code which authorized the same was repealed when the Constitution took effect. The dismissal of all employees and their being placed on holdover status is particularly objectionable in the DECS. 117 was issued by the President reorganizing the DECS. p.the supreme or superior degree. the petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari. in order to be valid. The ritual invocation of the abolition of office is not sufficient to justify the termination of the services of an officer or employee in such abolished office. If the petitioner is guilty of wrongdoing. Reyes....B. There was grave abuse of discretion when the petitioner's services were terminated by a mere letter-order on the justification that the petitioner. In the meantime. 3 "DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE. was only in a hold-over capacity. These principles were reiterated in De la Llana v. moving up the ranks in the public schools system. To reduce four hundred thousand officers and employees most of them permanent. is not only tyranny but cruelty of the first magnitude. this step is not in keeping with the mandate of the Freedom Constitution which tasks the President to make effective the guarantees of human rights against violations thereof. 321-322).. we believe. if the abolition is void. the petitioner questions the validity of the March 19. 1987 letterorder of the then Secretary of Education. 1987. If an executive department is bloated with unnecessary employees.R. to wit: .: (The issues raised in these consolidated cases refer to the validity of various reorganization programs in different agencies and/or departments of the government implementing the orders issued pursuant to the President's Proclamation No. 1988. so well respected and protected by the. hence on June 24. (Rollo. which is the sense in which "highly technical" is. the petitioner wrote Secretary Quisumbing requesting reconsideration of the letterorder.R. 1 declaring as policy the reorganization of the government and Proclamation No. 117 which provides for a reorganization of the DECS and the implementing guidelines thereof he would be considered separated from the service effective without prejudice to availment of benefits. 1990 FRANCISCO L. Quisumbing which terminated his employment as Schools Division Superintendent of Surigao City.It is a well-known rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. be implemented in a manner contrary to law. HELD: NO. The petitioner received the letter-order informing him that pursuant to Executive Order No. on a permanent status on March 2. And of course. Speaking through Mr.. should never be for personal or political reasons. Reorganizations can be accomplished without disruption of family life. There could have been no intention to get rid of hundreds of thousands of school teachers. Secretary Quisumbing appointed Dr. It is apparent that the petitioner's termination as Schools Division Superintendent of Surigao City was pursuant to the public respondent's view that under Section 24 of Executive Order No. Alba (112 SCRA 294 ) where we sustained a bona-fide reorganization. No. Executive Order No. Sering. the RAB recommended that action on the petitioner's letter. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction. One does not burn down a house if his purpose is to roast alleged pests. Culture and Sports (DECS) Lourdes R. No. He has served the Department of Education for forty-two (42) years.' Moreover. No.' As well-settled as the rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that.. QUISUMBING as Secretary of Education..) FACTS: In G. employed in the Constitution. 78053 June 4. it is an easy matter to the charges against him instead of placing the entire DECS on hold-over status in order to run after him. ISSUE: G. all incumbent officials/personnel are on 'holdover' status unless advised otherwise. No. ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION. Socorro L. In a resolution dated September 19. Petitioner Mendoza was the Schools Division Superintendent of Surigao City who was reappointed by respondent Quisumbing as such with a "PERMANENT" status. To use reorganization of the biggest Department in the government in order to avoid the hassles of bringing administrative charges against Mendoza and perhaps a few other alleged persona-non-gratas like him is precisely what this Court rejects when we apply the bona-fide rule. the Court was very emphatic in Cruz v. to holdover status preparatory to their eventual separation from the service many of them beyond middle age and too late to start a new career. HON. Culture and Sports GUTIERREZ.R. There are hundreds of technical men in the classified civil service whose technical competence is not lower than that of a city engineer. The letter particularly stated that consistent with the mandate of reorganization to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. (at pp. 78053 argues against the "holdover" feature of the challenged order in this manner: xxx xxx xxx . the abolition must be made in good faith.R. JR. 'The State recognizes sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. As a matter of fact. the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office. 78053. In his place. Justice J. the parties discussed the basic issues raised in these petitions during the hearings held on January 24 and 31. The letter was forwarded to the Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB). 1989.L. 1988. J. The use of "reorganization" even under the concept advocated by the Solicitor General appears trivial if not unnecessary.. The petitioner in G. 1986 (sic) Constitution when it says with honor and oxide. Jr. Primicias.
Dario vs. Mison also filed a petition questioning the decision of the CSC. At this point. We are on the second stage . HELD: On the first issue: August 8. RA 6656 was then passed also known as ACT TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION. having been appointed on April 22. the Government is not obliged to prove anything because the Constitution allows it." and that his position. transition periods are characterized by provisions for "automatic" vacancies. all officers and employees. 1986 — during the effectivity of the Provisional Constitution. Commissioner Mison also constituted a Reorganization Appeals Board charged with adjudicating appeals from removals under the above Memorandum which notices of termination were sent to 394 Customs officials. 1987.: FACTS: The President promulgated Executive Order No. was a Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau until his separation directed by Commissioner Mison. which is that of a Presidential appointee. the Filipino people adopted the new Constitution.The petition is GRANTED. leaving the question only on its nature and extent. which established safeguards against the strong arm and ruthless propensity that accompanies reorganizations -notwithstanding the fact that removals arising therefrom were "not for cause. on the other hand. 1987. that the purpose of reorganization is to end corruption at the Bureau of Customs and that since there is no finding that they are guilty of corruption. including casuals and temporary employees. The phrase "not for cause" is clearly and primarily exclusionary. it cannot be legitimately stated that we are merely continuing what the revolutionary Constitution of the Revolutionary Government had started. On the second issue: NO. 39. in order to be entitled to the benefits granted under Section 16 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1987. No. The successor of the public respondent.) Whether or not CSC erred in its decision. That application for clearance has been filed and no action thereon has been made by the corresponding department or agency. He adds that under Executive Order No. and 2. By its terms. shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. or b) offered another position in the same department or agency or c) informed of their termination. 3 dated March 25. (2) the reorganization from February 2. we must distinguish removals from separations arising from abolition of office (not by virtue of the Constitution) as a result of reorganization carried out by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of functions. And like Dario he claims that under the 1987 Constitution. 127. 1987. they cannot be validly dismissed from the service. of seniority rights and with back salaries reckoned from the date of his termination. incumbent Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum.R. 81954 SARMIENTO." the Commissioner of Customs has the power "[t]o appoint all Bureau personnel. upon the mantle of its provisions and safeguards. that whatever reorganization is taking place is upon the authority of the present Charter. The separation must not be for cause." In other words. 81967. then. collectors and examiners in venous ports of the Philippines. the provision benefits career civil service employees separated from the service." and in spite of the fact that such removals would have been valid and unquestionable. The separation must be due to any of the three situations mentioned above. On January 6. two requisites. Mison G. Unless also separated for cause. the petitioner in G. who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall. Such separation pay and retirement benefits shall have priority of payment out of the savings of the department or agency concerned. the Government is obliged to prove good faith. is beyond the control of Commissioner Mison for purposes of reorganization. Quisumbing as Secretary of Education.R.that inferred from the provisions of Section 16 of Article XVIII of the permanent basic document. he has acquired security of tenure and that he cannot be said to be covered by Section 59 of Executive Order No. 1987 issued by the public respondent which terminated the services of the petitioner is SET ASIDE. say. on February 2. is ordered to restore the petitioner to his position as Schools Division Superintendent of Surigao City without loss. In case of removals undertaken to comply with clear and explicit constitutional mandates. ISSUES: 1. to exclude those career civil service employees separated "for cause. Those who are not entitled to said benefits shall be paid a separation gratuity in the amount equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.the first stage. And the separation contemplated must be due to or the result of (1) the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. We are through with reorganization under the Freedom Constitution . however. 1986. J. 2. nevertheless. No. "ENLARGING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. is that notwithstanding her immense revolutionary powers. This is apparent from Executive Order No. 82023. magnanimous in her rule. Invariably. the employees covered by Executive Order 127 and the grace period extended to the Bureau of Customs by the President of the Philippines on reorganization shall be: a) informed of their re-appointment. In the latter case. 127. All the parties agree on the validity of reorganization per se. Also. Culture and Sports. 1987. The LETTER-ORDER dated MARCH 19. It can only mean. except those appointed by the President. They are dictated by the need to hasten the passage from the old to the new Constitution free from the "fetters" of due process and security of tenure. advanced by jurisprudence to February 2. the President was. "REORGANIZING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE” which provides for the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and prescribed a new staffing pattern therefor. Hence. Like Dario Vicente Feria. No. 1988. one negative and the other positive. Some sought reinstatement from the CSC which the latter granted to 279 of them while the others went directly to the Supreme Court. providing that all officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act. The petitioners in G. What must be understood. 1989 NO. must concur. to wit: 1. Thereafter. and necessarily. and (3) the resignations of career officers tendered in line with the existing policy and which resignations have been accepted. if entitled thereto." prescribing the procedure in personnel placement whereby it provides that by February 28.) Whether or not Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is a grant of a license upon the Government to remove career public officials it could have validly done under an "automatic"-vacancy-authority and to remove them without rhyme or reason. 17. the authority to remove public officials under the Provisional Constitution ended on February 25. the former Lourdes R. be paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits under existing laws within ninety (90) days from the date of the effectivity of their separation or from the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be: Provided. 1988. in the nature of "Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization Executive Orders.R. Noteworthy is the .
then. it would seem that the Commissioner would have been powerless. graft. to order dismissals at the Customs Bureau left and right. in any event. Assuming. the State did not lose its right to reorganize resulting to removals but such reorganization must be made in good faith. To sum up. the President could have validly removed officials before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution even without cause because it was a revolutionary government. that this reorganization allows removals "not for cause" in a manner that would have been permissible in a revolutionary setting as Commissioner Mison so purports. reorganizations must be carried out in good faith. . In this case. Lastly. and unfitness to render public service. from the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. Mison failed to prove that the reorganization was indeed made in good faith because he hired more people to replace those that he fired and no legitimate structural changes have been made.injunction embodied in the Executive Order that dismissals should be made on the basis of findings of inefficiency. However.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.