513 Phil. 217
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Name of Municipal Employee | Position | Salary Rate (p.a.) | Date of Appointment |
Namraida R. Awal | Accounting Clerk II | P9,000.00 | 01 January 1991 |
Zaalika R. Mangondaya | Senior Bookkeeper | P24,924.00 | 01 August 1991 |
Qamar M. Romato | Revenue Collector Clerk II | P9,000.00 | 15 February 1991 |
Macacua M. Awal | Budgeting Assistant | P18,000.00 | 31 July 1990 |
Aminola B. Macauyag | Revenue Collector Clerk I | P9,000.00 | 15 February 1991 |
Elias B. Macauyag | Revenue Collector Clerk II | P9,000.00 | 01 January 1991 |
Camlon M. Awal | Revenue Collector Clerk III | P9,000.00 | 01 January 1991 |
Ominta R. Maute | MPDC[7] | P79,056.00 | 07 February 1994 |
Saida R. Olama | HRMO[8] I | P34,464.00 | 07 February 1994 |
Azis M. Awal | License Inspector | P12,600.00 | 27 May 1991 |
Minaga B. Macauyag | Laborer | P3,996.00 | 02 January 1991 |
Gumander P. Awal | Laborer | P3,996.00 | 01 January 1991 |
Sominsang M. Bocua | Laborer | P3,996.00 | 02 January 1991 |
Please be informed that due to your failure to comply (sic) the Memorandum of the undersigned incumbent municipal mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur, dated December 25, 1993 as well as your failure to continuously report to office since December 23, 1993 up to this date, you are hereby terminated as (position) of this municipality with the following grounds:Meanwhile, Mayor Amatonding was ambushed and killed on 24 June 1994. Consequently, then incumbent vice-mayor, Monabantog Kiram, became the Municipal Mayor of subject municipality.
a - Abandonment of office (failed to report to duty);
b - Unauthorized absences from December 23, 1993 up to this date;
c - Defiance to several notices/memoranda issued by this Office;
...
HENCEFORTH, you are not entitled to claim salary and other emoluments from the present administration of the undersigned incumbent municipal mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur.
For information and guidance.
...On 16 January 1995, the CSCRO No. XII required private respondents Mayor Kiram and Mesug Palawan, then Municipal Treasurer of Butig, to comment on the complaint filed against them. Only Palawan filed the requested comment as Mayor Kiram was at that time suspended from office. In his comment dated 21 February 1995, the latter expressly stated that the complainants were indeed illegally dismissed from service and that Mayor Kiram and Monasimban Lantud, the former Municipal Treasurer, failed to apprise his office of the allegations raised against them.
...when Palawan Amatonding (now deceased) was proclaimed and declared Winner (sic) by the Commission on Election as duly elected Mayor of Butig by virtue of electoral protest, he subsequently declared our position vacant and considered all the plaintiffs dismissed from the service without due process and without basis in law and in fact, and thereafter ordered to stop payment of our salaries effective January 1, 1994, by then and thereafter, Monabantog Kiram who took over the Mayorship of the Municipality maintained and sustained the illegal order of his predecessor, by patently denying and depriving all the plaintiffs of their just salaries including their benefits ....
...
Henceforth, complainants with permanent appointments should be reinstated to their former positions and incidental to their reinstatement is the payment of back salaries and other benefits from the time the complainants were illegally separated up to the time of their reinstatement. This view is well-settled in the case of Tañala vs. Legaspi, 13 SCRA 566 quoted hereunder, viz:With respect to private respondent municipal employees with temporary appointments,[11] however, the CSCRO No. XII had this to say:"When a government official or employee in the classified civil service had been illegally suspended or dismissed, and his reinstatement had later been ordered, for all legal purposes he is considered as not having left his office, so that he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office that he held."
However, in the case of complainants who were issued temporary appointments, it must be stressed that a temporary appointment does not give the appointee any definite tenure of office but makes it dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power.On 08 August 1995, Dimnatang B. Pansar, the newly elected Municipal Mayor of Butig, filed a motion for reconsideration,[12] alleging that:
...
... separation from the service of one who holds a temporary appointment is not deemed as removal or dismissal but simply an expiration of the term to hold office in view of the fact that when the appointee accepted his temporary appointment, he effectively divested himself of his security of tenure.
It further added that:
Likewise, complainants who, in this case, were issued temporary appointments shall be entitled payment of their salaries for actual services rendered.
Complainants are indeed ghost employees of former Mayor Abdurahman M. Romato. It must be noted however that during the incumbency of Mayor Romato, complainants have never reported for work to perform their duties as government employees. Copy of the Joint-Affidavit dated March 20, 1995 of members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Butig, showing that complainants have not reported at the Municipal Hall of Butig, Municipality of Butig, to render service as employees since July 1992 up to the present time and that they are protégées and close relatives of the Mayor Abdurahman M. Romato, is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made part hereof.In a Resolution[13] dated 21 November 1995, however, the CSCRO No. XII denied said motion, stating thus:
...
Since complainants failed to have actually assumed their respective positions, as already discussed, it follows therefore that they never acquired any legal rights whatsoever over their claimed positions....
...When the case was elevated to the CSC, the commission likewise found private respondent municipal employees to have been illegally separated from their employment; hence, affirmed the questioned resolutions and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner municipality.
...Granting without conceding that Complainants indeed failed to report for work, they should have been accorded a notice and a hearing before they were dismissed from the service....
...
WHEREFORE, since Appellant failed to raise any convincing argument nor introduce any material evidence sufficient to controvert Complainants' allegations, this level finds no cogent reason to deviate from its earlier ruling.
The motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
The only issue in this case is whether or not the separation of the subject employees is valid.Reconsideration was again sought by petitioner municipality but it was subsequently denied in CSC Resolution No. 981729[15] dated 02 July 1998.
...
There is no dispute that the subject employees were dismissed from the service without observing the requirements of due process. They were not administratively charged with any offense and found guilty thereof, nor were they dropped from the rolls for any reason.
The contention of the appellant that the subject employees are relatives of the Municipal Mayor and are, therefore, covered by the rule against nepotism had not been substantiated. Suffice it to state that said appointments were approved and as such, these enjoy the presumption of regularity in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
...
As to Maute and Olama who were both issued temporary appointments on February 7, 1994, they do not enjoy security of tenure. The termination of their services cannot be questioned. As temporary appointees, their services may be terminated anytime with or without cause. However, they are entitled to payment of salaries for actual services rendered prior to their separation and the money value of their accrued leave credits, if any.
In view of the above, it held that:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Mayor Dimnatang B. Pansar is hereby dismissed. Thus, the termination of the services of Zaalika Mangondaya, et al. is declared illegal. They should be reinstated to their positions with payment of backwages without loss of seniority rights. With respect to Ominta Maute and Saida Olama, they should be paid salaries for actual services rendered prior to their termination and other accrued money benefits.
Accordingly, the decision of the CSRO No. XII is affirmed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the challenged Resolutions are hereby affirmed and the instant petition ordered DISMISSED and Costs against the petitioners.Hence this petition raising the following issues for resolution:
SO ORDERED.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND DOCTRINAL JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER;In sum, the following issues can be stated in one concise statement, that is, whether or not the private respondent municipal employees were illegally dismissed and, thus, entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages.II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN UPHOLDING THE PROPRIETIES OF THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ERRONEOUSLY DECLARING AS ILLEGAL THE SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE OF HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS;III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAD MANIFESTLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' REMOVAL FROM THE SERVICE IS WARRANTED UNDER CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 12 SERIES OF 1994;IV.
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AND PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES.
Name | Relations to Mayor Romato | |
Namraida R. Awal | - | Niece |
Zaalika R. Mangondaya | - | Niece |
Qamar M. Romato | - | Son |
Macacua M. Awal | - | Nephew (by affinity) |
Aminola B. Macauyag | - | - |
Elias B. Macauyag | - | Nephew (by affinity) |
Camlon M. Awal | - | - |
Ominta R. Maute | - | - |
Saida R. Olama | - | Daughter |
Azis M. Awal | - | Nephew (by affinity) |
Minaga B. Macauyag | - | Nephew (by affinity) |
Gumander Awal | - | (fictitious person) |
Sominsang M. Bocua | - | Nephew |
The contention of the appellant that the subject employees are relatives of the Municipal Mayor and are, therefore, covered by the rule against nepotism had not been substantiated. Suffice it to state that said appointments were approved and as such, these enjoy the presumption of regularity in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.Despite the foregoing disquisition, however, we have to rule in favor of petitioner municipality as we disagree in the final analysis of the Court of Appeals and so hold that it erred in affirming the finding of illegal dismissal.
... nothing is mentioned about any misfeasance or malfeasance in office committed by the private respondents. Petitioner's insistence and justification in terminating their services are either because they are ghost employees, that they never really assumed their respective offices, or that, their appointments violated the nepotism law. [Emphasis supplied.]is a devastatingly erroneous appraisal of the evidence on record. At the outset, petitioner municipality has incessantly asserted that not only did private respondent municipal employees fail to assume office after their appointment and the rule against nepotism violated by said appointments, but that private respondent municipal employees were actually dropped from the rolls due to AWOL such that neither prior notice nor hearing were necessary. Neither the CSC nor the CSCRO No. XII looked into said issue. Said Commission brushed aside, nay, completely ignored the matter. As such, the Court of Appeals should have delved into the allegation.
...The appellate court went on further to quote with approval the pronouncements of the CSC in Resolution No. 974343 dated 06 November 1997.
...any employee in the government service, upon assumption in office, is endowed with a vested legal right falling within the protective mantle not only by existing laws but by our constitution. It entitles such employee to remain in office and removable only for cause but with prior notice and hearing.
And inasmuch as administrative proceedings partake the nature of a punitive action involving removal from office and forfeiture of pay, the presumption of innocence must be upheld until the contrary is proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
...
At bar, nothing is mentioned about any misfeasance or malfeasance in office committed by the private respondents....
It should be noted that the appointments extended to the private respondents for permanent positions carry with them the valid attestation of the Civil Service Regional Office No. 12 of Cotabato City. A fact not disputed and which entitles them to the security of tenure of a government employee removable only for cause after due process....[21]
Sec. 2. ...(3)No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.In its resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the CSCRO No. XII had this to say:
...
...It bears emphasizing that the bases for terminating the services of respondent municipal employees were expressly enumerated in the memorandum-notice issued by the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur, they are:
...Granting without conceding that Complainants indeed failed to report for work, they should have been accorded a notice and a hearing before they were dismissed from the service. But apparently, they were deprived of due process... .
...
a – Abandonment of office (failed to report to duty);It is quite unfortunate that the CSC and the Court of Appeals overlooked a very important fact – that private respondents were dropped from the rolls for the simple reason that they were found to be AWOL for at least thirty (30) days. This was never renounced or rejected by private respondent municipal employees as evidenced by the records of the case at bar.
b – Unauthorized absences from December 23, 1993 up to this date;
c – Defiance to several notices/memoranda issued by this Office [Emphasis supplied.]
VI. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MODE OF SEPARATIONBy reason of the above-quoted provision, it is beyond doubt that the appointing authority has the legal right to drop from the rolls a civil service officer or employee even without prior notice and/or hearing.
- ...
- Dropping from the Rolls – non-disciplinary in nature, ...
Officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and may be dropped from the service without prior notice.
A notice or order of the dropping from the rolls of an employee shall be issued by the appointing authority and submitted to the CSC Office concerned for record purposes.- ... [Emphasis supplied.]