case digests 17

8/13/2019 Case Digests 17

1/22

G.R. No. L-17287 June 30,1965

JAIME HERNANDEZ, Sece!"# o$%&n"nce, ELE'(ERI) *A+A+AS,*o&&one o$ *u!o, JAMES H.EE%E, Ac!&n/ D&ec!o o$ Secu&!#,"n J'AN *. +AJ) Eecu!&eSece!"#, e!&!&one,

.

E+I%ANI) (. 4ILLEGAS "n !e H)N.*)'R( )% A++EALS, eonen!.

Office of the Solicitor General forpetitioners.

Antonio J. Villegas for respondents.

REGALA, J.:

Epifanio Villegas, a lawyer and civilservice eligile, was appointed !irectorfor Sec"rity of the #"rea" of $"sto%s,with co%pensation at &',(((, effective)ove%er *, *+. -n *+', he was sentto the nited States to st"dyenforce%ent techni/"es and c"sto%spractices "nder the technical assistanceprogra% of the )ational Econo%ic

$o"ncil and the -nternational $ooperationAd%inistration.

Villegas ret"rned to the &hilippines inJ"ne, *+0. Shortly thereafter, he waste%porarily detailed to the Arrastre

Service vice Elea1ar 2ani3in and, in hisstead, Ja%es 4eefe was designatedActing !irector for Sec"rity. 5hile he wasacting Arrastre S"perintendent, however,Villegas contin"ed receiving his salary as!irector for Sec"rity and, when the salarywas increased fro% &','(( to &0,(*0.'(,he also received the correspondingsalary ad6"st%ent.

On Jan"ary +, *+7, Secretary of 8inanceJai%e 9ernande1 proposed to the Officeof the &resident the per%anentappoint%ent of Villegas as ArrastreS"perintendent, stating in his letter thatthis ;the proposed appoint%entec"tive SecretaryJ"an $. &a6o advised Secretary9ernande1 that the &resident hadapproved the proposed appoint%ents ofVillegas and 4eefe. Accordingly, Villegasand 4eefe?s appoint%ents, effective

Jan"ary *, *+7, were prepared and latersigned y Secretary 9ernande1. As the$o"rt of Appeals oserved in its decision,-n one of the appoint%ents, defendant

4eefe was pro%oted to the position of!irector for Sec"rity ... and in the otherplaintiff was de%oted to the ran3 ofarrastre s"perintendent. ;E%phasiss"ppliedceptions to ther"le re/"iring appoint%ents in the $ivilService to e %ade on the asis of %erita fitness as deter%ined fro% co%petitivee>a%inations ;sec. *, s"pra< ;Jover vs.#orra, =+ O.G. F)o. 0 @0e%pt s"ch

positions fro% the operation of theprinciple e%phatically and categoricallyen"%erated in section = of Article -- thatC

)o officer or e%ployee in the $ivilService shall e re%oved or s"spendede>cept for ca"se as provided y law.

and which recogni1es no e>ception.

Bhis view finds confir%ation in sections and of the $ivil Service Act of *++;Rep. Act )o. @@'(ception to thegeneral r"le that all appoint%ents %"ste %ade on the asis of %erit and fitnessto e deter%ined y co%petitivee>a%inations. ;Sinco, &hilippine &oliticalLaw =** F**th ed. *+'@< -ndeed, in the$orp"s case, this state%ent was held asnot controlling, the r"ling in the !e losSantos case, where the state%entappears, eing that a city engineer whoelongs to the "nclassified service isprotected y the sec"rity of ten"reprovisions of the $onstit"tion.

-t is to e "nderstood of co"rse thatofficials and e%ployees holding pri%arilyconfidential positions contin"e only for solong as confidence in the% end"res. Bheter%ination of their official relation cane 6"stified on the gro"nd of loss ofconfidence eca"se in that case theircessation fro% office involves no re%oval"t %erely the e>piration of the ter% ofoffice C two different ca"ses for theter%ination of official relationsrecogni1ed in the Law of &"lic Officers.

;See, e.g., $orp"s v. $"aderno, s"praHAla vs. Evangelista, O.G. *=@H8ernande1 v. Ledes%a, G.R. )o. LD*770+,2arch (, *+'. $ontra 9o6illa v. 2arino,G.R. )o. LD@(0=, 8e. @', *+'.< #"t thepoint is that as long as confidence inthe% end"res C and it has een shown

that it has een lost in this case inc"%ent is entitled to continoffice.

5e therefore hold that Villegas? refro% the office of !irector for Secwitho"t ca"se and is therefore illeg

59ERE8ORE, the decision appealeis affir%ed, witho"t prono"nce%encosts.

G.R. No. 11275. )c!oe 16,


3/22

A:'ILIN) (. LARIN, e!&!&one, .(HE E;E*'(I4E SE*RE(AR Officer, thenAssistant $o%%isioner of the #"rea" of-nternal Reven"e and his coDacc"sed;e>cept J"stino E. Galan, Jr.< of thecri%es of violation of Section @'7 ;=< ofthe )ational -nternal Reven"e $ode andSection ;e< of R.A. (*+ in $ri%inal$ases )os. *=@(7D*=@(+, entitled&eople of the &hilippines, &laintiff vs.A/"ilino B. Larin, Beodoro B. &areno,

J"stino E. Galan, Jr. and &otenciana ).Evangelista, Acc"sed, the dispositiveportion of the 6"dg%ent reads:

59ERE8ORE, 6"dg%ent is now renderedin $ri%inal $ases )os. *=@(7 and *=@(+convict ing acc"sed Ass istant$o%%issioner for Specific Ba> A/"ilino B.Larin, $hief of the Alcohol ta> !ivision

BEO!ORO &. &ARE)O, and $hief of theReven"e acco"nting !ivision&OBE)$-A)A 2. EVA)GEL-SBA:

>>>

SO OR!ERE!.K

Bhe fact of petitionerIs conviction wasreported to the &resident of the&hilippines y the then Acting 8inanceSecretary Leong thro"gh a %e%orand"%dated J"ne =, *++. Bhe %e%orand"%states, inter alia:

Bhis is a report in the case of Assistant$o%%issioner AM-L-)O B. LAR-) of theE>cise ta> Service, #"rea" of -nternalReven"e, a presidential appointee, one ofthose convicted in the $ri%inal $ase )os.*=@(7D*=@(+, entitled &eople of the&hilippines vs. A/"ilino B. Larin, et. al.IReferred to the !epart%ent of 8inace ythe $o%%issioner of -nternal Reven"e.

Bhe cases against &areno andEvangelista are eing acted "pon y the#"rea" of -nternal reven"e as they nonDpresidential appointees.

>>>

-t is clear fro% the foregoing thLarin has fo"nd eyond reasonaleto have co%%itted acts consgrave %iscond"ct. nder theService Laws and R"les which only preponderance of evidence,%iscond"ct is p"nishale y dis%is

Acting y a"thority of the &reside!ep"ty E>ec"tive Secretary LeonaM"is"%ing iss"ed 2e%orand"%)o. *'= dated A"g"st @, *++provides for the creation of an E>e$o%%ittee to investigate ad%inistrative charge against petitioner A/"ilino B. Larin. -t state

A $o%%ittee is herey creainvestigate the ad%inistrative co%filed against A/"ilino B. Larin, As$o%%issioner, #"rea" of -Reven"e, to e co%posed of:

Atty. 8r"%encio A. Lag"stan N $hai

Assistant E>ec"tive SecretaryLegislation

2r. Jose #. Ale6andro N 2e%er

&residential Assistant


4/22

Atty. Jai%e 2. 2a1a N 2e%er

Assistant co%%issioner of -nspectorservices

#"rea" of -nternal Reven"e

Bhe $o%%ittee shall have the powersand prerogatives of ;an< investigatingco%%ittee "nder the ad%inistrative$ode of *+70 incl"ding the power tos"%%on witnesses, ad%inister oath orta3e testi%ony or evidence relevant tothe investigation y s"poena adtestificand"% and s"poena d"cestec"%:

>>>

Bhe $o%%ittee shall convenei%%ediately, cond"ct the investigation inthe %ost e>peditio"s %anner, andter%inate the sa%e as soon aspracticale fro% its first sched"led dateof hearing.

>>>K

$onse/"ently, the $o%%ittee directedthe petitioner to respond to thead%inistrative charge leveled against

hi% thro"gh a letter dated Septe%er*0, *++, th"s:

&residential 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'=dated A"g"st @, *++, a >ero> copy ofwhich is hereto attached for yo"r readyreference, created an -nvestigation$o%%ittee to loo3 into the chargesagainst yo" which are also the s"6ect of

the $ri%inal $ases )o. *=@(7 and *=@(+entitled &eople of the &hilippines vs.A/"ilino B. Larin, et. al.

Bhe co%%ittee has its possession acertified tr"e copy of the !ecision of theSandiganayan in the aoveD%entionedcases.

&"rs"ant to &residential 2e%orand"%

Order )o. *'=, yo" are herey directedto file yo"r position paper on theafore%entioned charges within seven ;0>>.

8ail"re to file the re/"ired position papershall e considered as a waiver on yo"rpart to s"%it s"ch paper or to e heard,in which case, the $o%%ittee shall dee%the case s"%itted on the asis of thedoc"%ents and records at hand.I

-n co%pliance, petitioner s"%itted aletter dated Septe%er (, *++ whichwas addressed to Atty. 8r"%encio A.Lag"stan , the $hair%an of the

-nvestigating $o%%ittee. -n said latter,he asserts that,

Bhe case eing s"D6"dice, - %ay not ,therefore, co%%ent on the %erits ofiss"es involved for fear of eing cited inconte%pt of $o"rt. Bhis position paper isth"s li%ited to f"rnishing the $o%%itteepertinent doc"%ents s"%itted with the

S"pre%e $o"rt and other tri"nal whichtoo3 cogni1ance of the case in the past,as follows:

>>>

Bhe foregoing doc"%ents readily showthat - a% not ad%inistratively liale orcri%inally c"lpale of the charges leveledagainst %e, and that the aforesaid cases

are %ere prosec"tions ca"sed to e filedand are eing orchestrated y ta>payerswho were pre6"diced y %"ltiD%illionpeso assess%ents - ca"sed to e iss"edagainst the% in %y official capacity asAssistant $o%%issioner, E>cise Ba>office of #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e.I

-n the sa%e letter, petitioner clai%s thatthe ad%inistrative co%plaint against hi%is already arred: a< on 6"risdictionalgro"nd as the Office of the O%"ds%an

had already ta3en cogni1ance of the caseand had ca"sed the filing only of thecri%inal charges against hi%, < y res

6"dicata, c< do"le 6eopardy, and dec"tive !epart%ent inthe #-R p"rs"ant to E>ec"tive Order )o.*@. Bh"s, he assailed said E>ec"tiveOrder )o. *@ and its i%ple%entingr"les, na%ely, Reven"e Ad%inistrativeOrders =D+ and D+ for eing "ltra

vires. 9e clai%ed that there is yet no lawenacted y $ongress which a"thori1esthe reorgani1ation y the E>ec"tive!epart%ent of e>ec"tive agencies,partic"larly the #"rea" of -nternalreven"e. 9e said that the reorgani1ationso"ght to e effected y the E>ec"tive

!epart%ent on the asis of E.O. )o. *@is tainted with ad faith in apparentviolation of Section @ of R.A. ''',otherwise 3nown as the Act &rotectingthe Sec"rity of Ben"re of $ivil ServiceOff icers and E%ployees in the-%ple%entation of Govern%entReorgani1ation.

On the other hand, respondentscontended that since petitioner is thepresidential appointee, he falls "nder thedisciplining a"thority of the &resident.

Bhey also contended that E.O. )o. *@and its i%ple%enting r"les were validlyiss"ed p"rs"ant to Sections =7 and '@ ofRep"lic Act )o. 0'=. Apart fro% this,the other legal ases of E.O. )o. *@ asstated in its prea%le are Section ' ofE.O )o.*@0 ;Reorgani1ing the 2inistry of8inance


6/22

re%oval of the &resident. Bhis power ofre%oval, however, is not an asol"te onewhich accepts no reservation. -t %"st epointed o"t that petitioner is a careerservice officer. nder the Ad%inistrative$ode of *+70, career service ischaracteri1ed y the e>istence ofsec"rity of ten"re, as contraDdisting"ished fro% nonDcareer servicewhose ten"re is coDter%in"s with that of

the appointing or s"6ect to his pleas"re,or li%ited to a period specified y law orto the d"ration of a partic"lar pro6ect forwhich p"rpose the e%ploy%ent was%ade. As a career service officer,petitioner en6oys the right to sec"rity often"re. )o less than the *+70$onstit"tion g"arantees the right ofsec"rity of ten"re of the e%ployees ofthe civil service. Specifically, Section 'of &.!. )o. 7(0, as a%ended, otherwise3nown as $ivil Service !ecree of the&hilippines, is e%phatic that careerservice officers and e%ployees who en6oy

sec"rity of ten"re %ay e re%oved onlyfor any of the ca"ses en"%erated in saidlaw. -n other words, the fact that thepetitioner is a presidential appointeedoes not give the appointing a"thoritythe license to re%ove hi% at will or at hispleas"re for it is an ad%itted fact that heis li3ewise a career service officer who"nder the law is the recipient of ten"rialprotection, th"s, %ay only e re%ovedfor a ca"se and in accordance withproced"ral d"e process.

5as petitioner then re%oved fro% officefor a legal ca"se "nder a va lidproceeding

Altho"gh the proceedings ta3en co%pliedwith the re/"ire%ents of proced"ral d"eprocess, this $o"rt, however, considersthat petitioner was not dis%issed for avalid ca"se.

-t sho"ld e noted that what precipitatedthe creation of the investigativeco%%ittee to loo3 into the ad%inistrative

charge against petitioner is his convictiony the Sandiganayan in cri%inal $ase)os. *=@(7 and *=@(+. As ad%itted ythe respondents, the ad%inistrative caseagainst petitioner is ased on theSandiganayan !ecision of Septe%er*7, *++@. Bh"s, in the Ad%inistrativeOrder )o. *(* iss"ed y Senior !ep"tyE>ec"tive Secretary M"is"%ing whichfo"nd petitioner g"ilty of grave%iscond"ct, it clearly states that:

Bhis pertains to the ad%inistrativecharge against Assistant $o%%issionerA/"ilino B. Larin of the #"rea" of -nternalReven"e, for grave %iscond"ct y virt"eof a 2e%orand"% signed y ActingSecretary Leong of the !epart%ent of8inance, on the asis of decision handeddown y the 9on. Sandiganayanconvicting Larin, et. al. in $ri%inal $ases)o. *=@(7 and *=@(+.F=

-n a n"tshell, the cri%inal cases against

petitioner refer to his alleged violation ofSection @'7 ;=< of the )ational -nternalReven"e $ode and of section ;e< of R.A.)o.(*+ as a conse/"ence of his act offavoraly reco%%ending the grant of ta>credit to Band"ay !istillery, -nc.. Bhe

pertinent portion of the 6"dg%ent of theSandiganayan reads:

As aove pointed o"t, the acc"sed hadconspired in 3nowingly preparing false%e%oranda and certification in order toeffect a fra"d "pon ta>es d"e to thegovern%ent. #y their separate actswhich had res"lted in an appropriate ta>

credit of &*7(,0(*,'7@.(( in favor ofBand"ay. Bhe govern%ent had eendefra"ded of a ta> reven"e D for the f"lla%o"nt, i f one is to loo3 at theavail%ents or "tili1ation thereof ;E>hiits?AA? to ?AAD*Da? reven"e of the govern%ent>>>.?F

9owever, it %"st e stressed at this

6"nct"re that the conviction of petitionery the Sandiganayan was set aside ythis co"rt in o"r decision pro%"lgated onApril *0, *++' in G.R. )os. *(7(0D7and *(0**+D@(. 5e specifically r"led inno "ncertain ter%s that : a< petitioner

cannot e held negligent in relythe certification of a coDe/"al "nit#-R, < it is not inc"%ent "pon Lgo eyond the certification %ade Reven"e Acco"nting !ivision

Band"ay !istillery, -nc. had paid valore% ta>es, c< there is nirreg"lar or anything false in %arginal note on the %e%oraddressed to &areno, the $hief of A

Ba> !ivision who was also one acc"sed, "t event"ally ac/"itted,said cri%inal cases, and d< thereproof of act"al agree%ent etweacc"sed, incl"ding petitioner, to cthe illegal acts charged. 5e are e%in o"r resol"tion in said cases thais nothing il legal with theco%%itted y the petitioner;s


7/22

ad%inistrative liaility.F' 9owever, thecirc"%stantial setting of the instant casesets it %iles apart fro% the foregoing r"leand placed it well within the e>ception.$orollarily, where the very asis of thead%inistrative case against petitioner ishis conviction in the cri%inal actionwhich was later on set aside y this co"rt"pon a categorical and clear findings thatthe acts for which he was

ad%inistratively held liale are not"nlawf"l and irreg"lar, the ac/"ittal ofthe petitioner in the cri%inal casenecessarily entails the dis%issal of thead%inistrative action against hi%,eca"se in s"ch a case, there is no asisnor 6"stifiale reason to %aintain thead%inistrative s"it.

On the aspect of proced"ral d"e process,s"ffice it to say that petitioner was givenevery chance to present his side. Bhe

r"le is well settled that the essence ofd"e process in ad%inistrativeproceedings is that a party e afforded areasonale opport"nity to e heard andto s"%it any evidence he %ay have ins"pport of his defense.F0 Bhe recordsclearly show that on Octoer *, *++petitioner s"%itted his letterDresponsedated Septe%er (, *++ to thead%inistrative charged filed against hi%.Aside fro% his letter, he also s"%ittedvario"s doc"%ents attached as anne>esto his letter, all of which are evidencess"pporting his defense. &rior to this, he

received a letter dated Septe%er *0,*++ fro% the -nvestigation $o%%itteere/"iring hi% to e>plain his sideconcerning the charge. -t cannottherefore e arg"ed that petitioner wasdenied of d"e process.

Let "s now e>a%ine E>ec"tive Order )o.*@.

As stated earlier, with the iss"ance ofE>ec"tive Order )o. *@, so%e of thepositions and offices, incl"ding the officeof E>cise Ba> Services of which petitioner

was the Assistant $o%%issioner, wereaolished or otherwise decentrali1ed.$onse/"ently, the &resident released thelist of appointed Assistant $o%%issionersof the #-R. Apparently, petitioner was notincl"ded.

-nitially, it is arg"ed that there is no lawyet which e%powers the &resident toiss"e E.O. )o. *@ or to reorgani1e the#-R.

5e do not agree.

nder its &rea%le, E.O. )o. *@ laysdown the legal asis of its iss"ance,na%ely: a< Section =7 and '@ of R.A. )o.0'=, < Section ' of E.O. )o. *@0, andc< Section @(, #oo3 --- of E.O. )o. @+@.

Section =7 of R.A. 0'= provides that:

Sec. =7. Scaling !own and &hase O"t ofActivities of Agencies 5ithin theE>ec"tive #ranch. DD Bhe heads ofdepart%ents, "rea"s and offices and

agencies are herey directed to identifytheir respective activities which are nolonger essential in the delivery of p"licservices and which %ay e scaled down,phased o"t or aolished, s"6ect to civilr"les and reg"lations. >>>. Act"al scalingdown, phasing o"t or aolition of theactivities shall e effective p"rs"ant to$irc"lars or Orders iss"ed for the p"rposey the Office of the &resident. ;italics

o"rs>>.

9owever, 5e can not consider E.O. )o.*@0 signed on Jan"ary (, *+70 as alegal asis for the reorgani1ation of the#-R. E.O. )o. *@0 sho"ld e related to thesecond paragraph of Section ** ofRep"lic Act )o. '''.

Section ** provides inter alia:

>>>

-n the case of the *+70 reorgani1ation ofthe e>ec"tive ranch, all depart%entsand agencies which are a"thori1ed ye>ec"tive orders pro%"lgated y the

&resident to reorgani1e shall have ninetydays fro% the approval of this act withinwhich to i%ple%ent their respectivereorgani1ation plans in accordance withthe provisions of this Act. ;italics o"rsec"tive Order )o. *@0 was part of the*+70 reorgani1ation conte%plated "ndersaid provision. Ovio"sly, it had eco%e

stale y virt"e of the e>piration of theninety day deadline period. -t can notth"s e "sed as a proper asis for thereorgani1ation of the #-R. )evertheless,as shown earlier, there are other legalases to s"stain the a"thority of the&resident to iss"e the /"estioned E.O.)o. *@.

5hile the &resident?s power to reorgani1ecan not e denied, this does not %eanhowever that the reorgani1ation itself is

properly %ade in accordance with law.5ellDsettled i s the r"le thatreorgani1ation is regarded as validprovided it is p"rs"ed in good faith. Bh"s,in !ario vs. 2ison, this co"rt has had theoccasion to clarify that:

As a general r"le, a reorgani1ation iscarried o"t in good faithI if it is for thep"rpose of econo%y or to %a3e"rea"cracy %ore efficient. -n that eventno dis%issal or separation act"ally

occ"rs eca"se the position itself ceasesto e>ist. And in that case the sec"rity often"re wo"ld not e a $hinese 5all. #ethat as it %ay, if the aolition which isnothing else "t a separation or re%oval,is done for political reasons or p"rposely

to defeat sec"rity of ten"re, or otherwisenot in good faith, no valid aolition ta3esplace and whatever aolition is done isvoid a initio. Bhere is an invalid aolitionas where there is %erely a change ofno%enclat"re of positions or whereclai%s of econo%y are elied y thee>istence of a%ple f"nds.F**

-n this regard, it is worth %entioning thatSection @ of R.A. )o. ''' lists down thecirc"%stances evidencing ad faith inthe re%oval of e%ployees as a res"lt ofthe reorgani1ation, th"s:

Sec. @. )o officer or e%ployee in thecareer service shall e re%oved e>ceptfor a valid ca"se and after d"e notice andhearing. A valid ca"se for re%oval e>istwhen, p"rs"ant to a ona f idereorgani1ation, a position has een

aolished or rendered red"ndant or thereis a need to %erge, divide, or consolidatepositions in order to %eet the e>igenciesof the service, or other lawf"l ca"sesallowed y the $ivil Service Law. Bhee>istence of any or so%e of the followingcirc"%stances %ay e considered asevidence of ad faith in the re%ovals%ade as a res"lt of the reorgani1ation,giving rise to a clai% for reinstate%ent orreappoint%ent y an aggrieved party:

a< 5here there is a significant increasein the n"%er of positions in the newstaffing pattern of the depart%ent oragency concernedH

< 5here an office is aolisheanother perfor%ing s"stantialsa%e f"nctions is createdH

c< 5here inc"%ents are replacthose less /"alified in ter%s of stappoint%ent, perfor%ance and %e

d< 5here there is a reclassificaoffices in the depart%ent or aconcerned and the reclassified perfor% s"stantially the sa%e f"as the original officesH

e< 5here the re%oval violates theof separation provided in Sechereof.

A reading of so%e of the provisithe /"estioned E.O. )o. *@ clearly"s to an inescapale concl"siothere are circ"%stances consideevidences of ad faith inreorgani1ation of the #-R.

Section *.*.@ of said e>ec"tiveprovides that:

*.*.@ Bhe -ntelligence and -nvestOffice and the -nspection Serviaol ished. An -ntel ligence -nvestigation Service is herey creasor the sa%e f"nctions o


9/22

aolished office and service. >>> ;italicso"rst lower in ran3. -t is "ndeniale thatpetitioner is a career e>ec"tive officerwho is holding a per%anent position.

9ence, he sho"ld have given preferencefor appoint%ent in the position ofAssistant $o%%issioner. As clai%ed ypetitioner, Antonio &angilinan who wasone of those appointed as Assistant$o%%issioner, is an o"tsider of sorts tothe "rea", not having een aninc"%ent officer of the "rea" at theti%e of the reorgani1ation. 5e sho"ldnot lose sight of the second paragraph ofSection = of R.A. )o. ''' whiche>plicitly states that no new e%ployeesshall e ta3en in "ntil all per%anentofficers shall have een appointed forper%anent position.

-) V-E5 O8 B9E 8OREGO-)G, the petitionis granted, and petitioner is hereyreinstated to his position as Assistant$o%%issioner witho"t loss of seniorityrights and shall e entitled to f"llac3wages fro% the ti%e of hisseparation fro% service "ntil act"alreinstate%ent "nless, in the %eanwhile,he wo"ld have reached the co%p"lsoryretire%ent age of si>tyDfive years inwhich case, he shall e dee%ed to haveretired at s"ch age and entitledthereafter to the correspondingretire%ent enefits.

SO OR!ERE!.

G.R. No. L-12536 Se!ee2, 1958

*)N*E+*I)N G. =RI)NES,"cco"n&e # e u"nDEM)*RI() R. =RI)NES, "n%A'S(IN) ). R)SAGARAN,

e!&!&one-"e>>ee,

.

SERGI) )SME?A, JR., M"#o o$ *eu*&!#, E(*., E( AL., eonen!-"e>>"n!.

*&!# %&c"> "n :u&&co e> M" $o"e>>"n!.

A>&no, A>&no "n +"c@u&"o $o"e>>ee.

REPES, J. #. L., J.:

Bhis is an action for %anda%"s withda%ages, to declare the aolition ofpetitioners? positions void and to orderthe respondent $ity 2ayor to reinstatethe% to their for%er positions.

&etitioner $oncepcion G. #riones is a firstgrade civil service eligile. On 2arch =,*+0, he was appointed as $ler3DStenographer in the Office of the $ity

Breas"rer of $e" and on A"g"st ,*+0, she was transferred to the Office of

the $ity 2ayor, in the sa%e capa$ler3DStenographer, "t with per%stat"s, since then she re%ainservice contin"o"sly, receiving repro%otions and increases in salary

&etitioner 8a"stino O. Rosagaran, other hand, is a second gradservice eligile. 9e was e%ployed

Office of the $ity 2ayor of $e"J"ly, *+=(, and pro%otedAd%inistrative Officer. -n *+, hp"licly declared and ad6"dged E%ployee. ;Anne> G, records, p.

On Jan"ary , *+', the 2"nicipalof the $ity of $e", acting "pre/"est of the respondent $ity e%odied in his letter, dated Jan"*+', passed Resol"tion )o. @*, se*+', creating positions in th

2ayor?s office, and appropriating tthe necessary a%o"nt for salaries %onths, the a%o"nts of &@7,(office e/"ip%ent, &@,((( for s"pplies and an additional a%o&*(,((( for the $ity 2discretionary f"nd.

Bhe new positions were:

&rivate Secretary at &@ a %onth

&*,(.((

Assistant &rivate Secretary at &%onth


10/22

&*,@+(.((

Bwo ;@< $onfidentialDAssistants at &@((each per %onth

&@,=((.((

Bwo ;@< Liaison Off icers at &@( each per%onth

&,(((.((

One !river at &*0 per %onth

&*,((.((

One !river at &*@( per %onth

&0@(.((

One Janitor at &*@( per %onth

&0@(.((

Bwo ;@< Laorers at &*@( each per %onth

&*,==(.((

Bwo ;@< Stenographers at &*( each per%onth

&*,7((.((

One Receptionist at &*( per %onth

&07(.((&"lic Relations Officer at &(( per%onth

&*,7((.((

Bwo Assistant &"lic Relations Officers at&*( each per %onth

&*,7((.((

One Stenographer at &*( per %onth

&+((.((

One Laorer at &*@( per %onth

&0@(.((


&0@(.((

$hief, $o%plaints and -nvestigation!ivision at &(( per %onth

&*,7((.((

Bwo ;@< Legal Assistants at &@(( eachper %onth

&@,=((.((

One Laorer at &*@( per %onth

&0@(.((


&0@(.((

Bhree ;< -nfor%ers at &*( each per%onth

&@,0((.((

Seven ;0< -nfor%ers at &*@( each per%onth

&,(=(.((

Botal

&=,((.((

On 8er"ary *=, *+', the 2"nicipal#oard in its Resol"tion )o. *70, series of*+', approved Ordinance )o. *+@,

aolishing * positions in the $ity2ayor?s office and *0 positions in theOffice of the 2"nicipal #oard, or a totalof @ positions in oth offices. A%ong thepositions aolished in the Office of the$ity 2ayor were those occ"pied ypetitioners. ;E>h. 9, pp. @D@=hs. - and -D*, Records, pp. @D@'e

Order )o. (', ser ies of conse/"ently, it rendered 6"dagainst defendants ordering threinstate the two petitioners tofor%er positions and pay theirsalaries as well as the cost of th8ro% this 6"dg%ent the respoappealed.

Appellants contend that the provisE>ec"tive Order )o. (', Series ofas reiterated in the &rovincial $irc

April , *+=, re/"iring previo"s apof the !epart%ent 9ead conefore aolition of positions ylegislative odies can ta3e effectlonger operative since $o%%onwealth, in view of the fathe $onstit"tion vests in the &residthe &hilippines ;Art. V--, section only general s"pervision, and not cover local govern%ents. Bhis conis s"stained y the recent doctrthis $o"rt, partic"larly Rodrig"2ontinola ;+= &hil., +'=H ( OffF*( =7@(< and !o%ing"e1 vs. &;*(* &hil., *


11/22

trial co"rt, is of no application since thatcase referred to police officers, whosere%oval or s"spension is governed yentirely different laws ;E>ec"tive Order)o. *0, Series *+7, and Rep"lic Act0ec"tive Order)o. (', s"pra, was not in iss"e.

)evertheless, in o"r opinion, the decisionappealed fro% sho"ld e s"stained, "ton different gro"nds. O"r review of theevidence on record convinced "s that thereasons given for the aolition of thepositions of the appellees ;alleged to eecono%y and efficiency< are "ntr"e, andconstit"te a %ere s"terf"ge for there%oval witho"t ca"se of the saidappellees, in violation of the sec"rity of$ivil Service ten"res as provided y the$onstit"tion.

$onsidering that the appellees haveserved in the office of the 2ayor of $e",since $o%%onwealth days, efore thewarH that their efficiency and %erit haseen attested y repeated and constantpro%otions and increases in salaryH thatpetitioner Rosagaran was evenproclai%ed 2odel E%ployee as recentlyas *+H and that 6"st a short ti%e eforethe aolition of their positions, therespondents had created for the sa%eoffice of the $ity 2ayor no less than new positions calling for an o"tlay of&'7,*(( per ann"%, al%ost &',((( a%onth, the e>c"se of pro%otingefficiency and econo%y is %osttransparent and "ni%pressive. A decentrespect for the $ivil Service provisions of

o"r $onstit"tion dictates that civil serviceeligiles, li3e petitioners herein who haverendered long and honorale service,sho"ld not e sacrificed in favor of nonDeligiles given positions of recentcreation, nor sho"ld they e left at the%ercy of political changes. -n &"l"tan vs.!i1on ;s"pra< we said:

-t is evident that the %ayor co"ld notlegally re%ove the petitioner witho"tca"se, for eing a %e%er of the $ivilService, his ten"re of office is protectedy Sect ion =, Article -- o f the$onstit"tion, which says:

?)o officer or e%ployee in the $ivilService shall e re%oved or s"spendede>cept for ca"se as provided y law.?

Bhe $o%%ittee on $ivil Service of the$onst it"t ional $onvention, inreco%%ending said provision said:.

. . . . Bhe %erit syste% will e ineffectiveif no safeg"ards are placed aro"nd theseparation and re%oval of the p"lice%ployees. Bhe $o%%ittees? reportre/"ires that re%oval shall e %ade onlyfor ca"se? and in the %anner provided ylaw. Bhis %eans that there sho"ld e

ona fide reasons and action %ay eta3en only after the e%ployee shall haveeen given a fair hearing. Bhis affords top"lic e%ployees reasonale sec"rity often"re. ;Ar"ego, the 8ra%ing of the&hilippine $onstit"tion, *+=+ Ed., p. '0ec"tive power to i%ple%ent laws nor

"nder%ines the constit"tional separationof powers. Rather, it is integral tothechec3s and alances inherent in ade%ocratic syste% of govern%ent. -t%ay in fact even enhance the separationof powers as itprevents the overDacc"%"lation of power in the e>ec"tiveranch.

9owever, to forestall the danger ofcongressional encroach%ent eyond the

legislative sphere, the $onstit"tioni%poses two asicand related constraintson $ongress

. -t %ay not vest itself, any of itsco%%ittees or its %e%ers with eithere>ec"tive or 6"dicial power.

And, when it e>ercises its legislativepower, it %"st follow the single, finelywro"ght and e>ha"stively considered,proced"res specified"nder the

$onstit"tion incl"ding the proced"re forenact%ent of laws andpresent%ent.Bh"s, any postDenact%entcongressional %eas"re s"ch as thissho"ld e li%ited to scr"tiny andinvestigation. -n partic" lar,congressionaloversight %"st e confinedto the following:;*< scr"tiny asedpri%arily on $ongress? power ofappropriation and the "dget hearingscond"cted in connection withit, its powerto as3 heads of depart%ents to appearefore and e heard y either of its9o"ses on any %atterpertaining to theirdepart%ents and i ts power ofconfir%ation

and;@< investigation and %onitoring

of the i%ple%entation of laws p"rs"antto the power of $ongress to cond"ctin/"iries inaid of legislation.

Any action or step eyond that will"nder%ine the separation of powersg"aranteed y the $onstit"tion.Legislative vetoes fall in thisclass.

Legislative veto is a stat"tory provisionre/"iring the &resident or anad%inistrative agency to present theproposed i%ple%enting r"lesandreg"lations of a law to $ongresswhich, y itself or thro"gh a co%%itteefor%ed y it, retains a right or powerto approve or disapproves"ch reg"lationsefore they ta3e effect. As s"ch, alegislative veto in the for% of acongressional oversight co%%ittee is inthe for% of aninwardDt"rning delegationdesigned to attach a congressional leash;other than thro"gh scr"tiny and

investigation< to an agency towhich$ongress has y law initiallydelegated road powers. -t radicallychanges the design or str"ct"re of the$onstit"tion?s diagra% of power asitentr"sts to $ongress a direct role inenforcing, applying or i%ple%enting itsown laws.

G.R. )o. +== A"g"st ', *++*

2A)-LA L-$ S$9OOL BEA$9ERS

ASSO$-AB-O), 8-!EL 8A#A#-ER 2ERL-)A)O)EVO, 2-)!A GALA)G and otherteacherD%e%ers so n"%ero"s si%ilarlysit"ated, petitionersDappellants,

vs.

B9E 9O). &ER8E$BO LAG-O JR.,capacity as &residing J"dge oRegional Brial $o"rt of 2anila, #ran9O). -S-!RO $AR-O, in his capaSecretary of Ed"cation, $"lt"rSports and the 9O). ERL-)!A LOin her capacity as 2anila $ity SS"perintendent, respondentsDappe

G.R No. 95590 Au/u! 6, 1991

ALLIAN*E )% *)N*ERNED (EA*A*(B, ENRI:'E D. ()R)DRIG) G. NA(I4IDAD, %RANA. NERE*INA, E4A 4. %ERIA, L'*ARRAS*), LE) R. RAM=)ha"sting allad%inistrative re%edies, to press for,a%ong other things, the i%%ediatepay%ent of d"e chal3, clothingallowances, *th %onth pay for *+7+arising fro% the i%ple%entation of theSalary Standardi1ation Law, the recall of!E$S Order + s. *++( directing theoversi1ing of classes and overloading ofteachers p"rs"ant to the costDc"tting%eas"res of the govern%ent, the hiringof =0,((( new teachers to ease theoverload of e>isting teachers, the ret"rn

of the additional *T real property ta>escollected y local govern%ent "nits toed"cation p"rposes to e ad%inisteredy the Local School #oards, andconse/"ent recall of !#2 $irc"lars )os.+(= and +(** and local "dget circ"lar)o. =0 consistent with RA ==0 and thenew $onstit"tion %andating thated"cation shall en6oy the highest"dgetary priority in the national "dget,and other e/"ally i%portant de%andsH

Bhe dialog"es and conferences initiatedy the petitioners and other teacherorgani1ations were as early as 2arch *=,

*+7+, 2arch *=, *++(, April @, *++(,2ay @7, *++(, J"ne , *++(, Septe%er, *++( and Septe%er *=, *++( withthe $ivil Service $o%%ission, the Senateand 9o"se of Representat ives,!epart%ent of #"dget and 2anage%ent

and the !epart%ent of Ed"cation,$"lt"re and Sports, "t all these did notres"lt in the granting of the de%ands ofthe petitioners, leaving the% with noother reco"rse "t to ta3e direct %assaction s"ch as the one they engaged inthree wee3s ago.

=. On Septe%er *=, *++(, the

petitioners and other teachers in othercities and %"nicipalities in 2etro 2anila,staged a protest rally at the !E$Spre%ises witho"t disr"pting classes as alast call for the govern%ent to negotiatethe granting of de%ands. )o responsewas %ade y the respondent Secretaryof Ed"cation, despite the de%onstration,so the petitioners egan the ongoingprotest %ass actions on Septe%er,*0,*++(. ...

Septe%er *0, *++( fell on a 2onday,which was also a reg"lar school day.

Bhere is no /"estion that the so%e 7((teachers who 6oined the %ass action didnot cond"ct their classes on that dayHinstead, as alleged in the petition in G.R.)o. ++(, = they converged at theLiwasang #onifacio in the %orningwhence they proceeded to the )ationalOffice of the !epart%ent of Ed"cation,$"lt"re and Sport ;!E$S< for a wholeDdayasse%ly. At ao"t *:(( o?cloc3 p.%.,three representatives of the gro"p wereallowed to see the respondent Secretaryof Ed"cation who r"shed aside theirgrievances, warned the% that theywo"ld lose their 6os for going on illegaland "na"thori1ed %ass leave. ponleaving said respondent?s presence, theywere handed an order directing all

participants in the %ass action toto wor3 in @= ho"rs or face dis%issa %e%orand"% directing the officials concerned to initiate disproceedings against those who dco%ply and to hire their replace%

Bhose directives notwithstanding%ass actions contin"ed into the with %ore teachers 6oining in thethat followed. -n its iss"e of Sept*+, *++(, the newspaper Standard reported that the day prethe respondent Secretary of Ed"had relieved @+@ teachers who dret"rn to their classes. Bhe ne>however, another daily, )ereported that the Secretary had reits dis%issal order and instead plaof the @+@ teachers "nder prevs"spension, despite which the protn"%ers had swelled to =,(((. '

On the record, what did happen waased on reports s"%itted principals of the vario"s p"lic sch2etro 2anila, the respondent Seof Ed"cation had filed %ot" ad%inistrative co%plaints againteachers who had ta3en part in theactions and defied the ret"rnDtorder on assorted charges li3e%iscond"ct, gross neglect of d"tyviolation of the $ivil Serviceasence witho"t official leave, etcplaced the% "nder +(Dday prevs"spension. Bhe respondents

served copies of the charge sheegiven five ;< days to s"%it anse>planation. Later, on Octoer 7,the respondent Secretary constit"investigating co%%ittee of fo"r deter%ine and ta3e the apprco"rse of action on the for%al c


14/22

and designated the special prosec"torson detail with the !E$S to handle theirprosec"tion d"ring the for%al hearings. 0

On Octoer **, *++(, the respondentSecretary of Ed"cation rendered the firstof his now /"estioned decisions on thead%inistrative co%plaints. -n $ase )o.!E$S +(D((@, he fo"nd twenty ;@( ;'< %onthsH +7 were e>onerated.+

Earlier, on Septe%er *+, *++(, the

petitioners in G.R. )o. +== had filedwith the Regional Brial $o"rt of 2anila#ranch *7, a petition *( for prohiition,declaratory relief and preli%inary%andatory in6"nction to restrain thei%ple%entation of the ret"rnDtoDwor3order of Septe%er *0, *++( and thes"spension or dis%issal of any teacherp"rs"ant thereto and to declare saidorder n"ll and void. -ss"ance e>Dparte ofa te%porary restraining order wasso"ght, "t seeing no co%pelling reasontherefor, the Regional Brial $o"rt insteadset the application for preli%inaryin6"nction for hearing, and heard thesa%e, on Septe%er @=, *++(.

Bhereafter and following the s"%issionof %e%orand"%s y the parties, said$o"rt rendered 6"dg%ent declaring theassailed ret"rnDtoDwor3 order valid and

inding, and dis%issing the petition forlac3 of %erit. **

Review of said 6"dg%ent is so"ght in G.R. )o. +==.

G.R. )o. ++( is a parallel original

proceeding for prohiition, %anda%"sand certiorari gro"nded on the sa%estate of facts and instit"ted fors"stantially the sa%e p"rpose i.e., theinvalidation of the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order ofthe respondent Secretary of Ed"cationand all orders of s"spension andUordis%issal thereafter iss"ed y saidrespondent against the teachers who hadta3en part in the %ass actions ofSepte%er *0, *++( and the days thatfollowed.

#oth cases were ordered consolidated yResol"tion iss"ed on Octoer @, *++(,*@ and separate co%%ents were filed ythe Solicitor General on ehalf of thep"lic respondents, in G.R. )o. +== onOctoer *, *++(, and in G.R. )o. ++(on !ece%er , *++(. * On )ove%er@(, *++( the parties were heard in oralarg"%ent on the petitioners? "nited pleasfor a te%porary restrainingorderU%andatory in6"nction to restore thestat"s /"o ante and en6oin the p"licrespondents fro% contin"ing with the

iss"ance of s"spension orders andproceeding with the ad%inistrative casesagainst the teachers involved in the%ass actions.

Said pleas were denied y the $o"rt in itsResol"tion of !ece%er *7, *++(, *= anda %otion for reconsideration filed y thepetitioners in G.R. )o. ++( wasli3ewise denied.

-n two separate "t identicallyDworded%otions filed on their ehalf y Atty.8roilan 2. #ac"ngan, * the following

persons, to wit: 8lorita !. G"a1on, EliseaG. La1o, Gon1ala G. Sioson, Esperan1aValero, )enita &angilinan, Ra%on !avid,A"rora #osi, Encarnita !avid, SocorroSentin, $risp"lo Santos, Rodrig"e1#agana, Rodolfo !. #acsal, R"en#ersa%ina, Rodolfo Arroyo, -rene Gadil,Reecca Roldan, Rosita Sa%son, &riscillaAvendia, Art"ro $a"hat, Rosalinda$aoili, Angelina $orp"1, &"risi%a Lena,Elsie So%era, !edaica J"say, Beresita&arto1a, Gloria Salvador, $atherine SanAg"stin, )estor Ag"irre, Loren1o Real,$elia Ron/"illo, Vicente $arran1a, JessieVillan"eva, Polanda Al"ra, $lara Alvare1,!anilo Lla%as, Ladera &anita 2yrna,Sena, enaida Ligon, !aisy S. $onti,!anilo $aalles, S"san 2aragat, Roerto2anlangit and Eli1aeth B. Ag"irre, see3leave to withdraw as parties in G.R. )o.++(. Bhese %ovants clai% that theyare s"ch parties altho"gh not individ"allyso na%ed in the petition in said case,eing a%ong those referred to in its titleas other si%ilarly sit"ated p"lic schoolteachers too n"%ero"s to e i%pleaded,who had een ad%inistratively charged,

then preventively s"spended andUordis%issed in the wa3e of the %assactions of Septe%er *++(. Bhey assertthat since this $o"rt is not a trier of facts,they have opted to appeal the/"estioned decisions or act"ations of therespondent Secretary of Ed"cation to the

$ivil Service $o%%ission whereelieve they will have ... aopport"nity to introd"ce evidenhow ;Secretary< $ariQo violatedconstit"tional rights to d"e proclaw ... sec"rity of ten"re apeacealy to asse%le and petitigovern%ent for redress of grievanc

An opposition to the first %otion wa*' which, riefly, contended that, $o"rt had already fo"nd thapetitioners had gone on an "stri3e and that p"lic resp$ariQo?s acts were pri%a facie law%otion was either an atte%pt at fshopping or %eant to avoidinevitale o"tco%e of iss"es apending final deter%ination y the

Bhe $o"rt?s Resol"tion of !ece%

*++(, s"pra, denying the petitplea for restoration of the stat"ante and to restrainUen6oin s"spensions of, and the initiatcontin"ation of, ad%inisproceedings against the teinvolved, is ased on the fopost"lates:

;*< the "ndenied indeed, the pleadad%itted fact that ao"t 7(( tea%ong the% the individ"al peti

and other "nna%ed "t sisit"ated %e%ers of the petiassociations in oth "na"thori1edly asented the%fro% their c lasses on a schoolday, Septe%er *0, *++(, in


15/22

to participate in a %ass action todra%ati1e their grievances concerning, inthe %ain, the alleged fail"re of the p"lica"thorities, either to i%ple%ent at all orto i%ple%ent in a 6"st and correct%anner, certain laws and %eas"resintended to enefit the% %ateriallyH

;@< the fact, too, that in the days that

followed, %ore %ass actions for thesa%e p"rpose were "nderta3en,notwithstanding a ret"rnDtoDwor3 orderiss"ed y the respondent Secretary ofEd"cationH %ore teachers 6oined the soDcalled peacef"l asse%lies onSepte%er *7, *++( and the n"%errising to =,((( on Septe%er *+, *++(H*0

;< that fro% the pleaded and ad%ittedfacts, these %ass actions were to all

intents and p"rposes a stri3eH theyconstit"ted a concerted and"na"thori1ed stoppage of, or asencefro%, wor3 which it was the teachers?d"ty to perfor%, "nderta3en foressentially econo%ic reasonsH

;=< that this co"rt had already definitivelyr"led that e%ployees in the p"lic ;civiled y lawH *7

;< that "pon the foregoing pre%ises, itwas pri%a facie lawf"l and within hisstat"tory a"thority for the respondentSecretary of Ed"cation to ta3e theactions co%plained of, to wit: iss"e aret"rnD toDwor3 order, preferad%inistrative charges against, andplace "nder preventive s"spension, thosewho failed to co%ply with said order, and

dis%iss fro% the service those who failedto answer or controvert the chargesH *+

Bhe $o"rt has not since een presentedwith any consideration of law orestalished fact that wo"ld i%pair thevalidity of these post"lates or precl"decontin"ed reliance thereon for thep"rpose of resolving the presentpetitions on their %erits.

Bhe "nderlying iss"e here is d"e processHnot whether the petitioners have a rightto stri3e, which it is clear they do not,however 6"stifiale their reasons, norwhether or not there was in fact s"ch astri3e, it eing e/"ally evident fro% thepleadings that there was, and thereeing no disp"te ao"t this. 5hattherefore, is ro"ght efore the $o"rt isthe /"estion of whether or not any rightsof the petitioners "nder the d"e processcla"se of the $onstit"tion as it applies toad%inistrative proceedings were violated

in the initiation, cond"ct, or disposition ofthe investigations co%plained of.

-ndeed, what the petitioners in G.R. )o.++( proclai% ao"t denial of d"e

process eing their para%o"ntco%plaint ... central to their prayer forinterloc"tory relief? @( co"ld as well esaid of the %erits of their %ain ca"se asof their plea for a restraining orderpendente lite or a preli%inary in6"nction.

Bhere are, however, ins"peraleostacles to the $o"rt?s ta3ing "p that

iss"e and resolving it in these cases. Saidiss"e is not ripe for ad6"dication y this$o"rt in the e>ercise of its review

6"risdictionH and this, for the ovio"sreason that it is one of fact. Bhe petitionsand s"se/"ent pleadings of thepetitioners allege facts andcirc"%stances which, it is clai%ed, showdenial of d"e process, citing ass"pposedly representative sa%ples @*a%ong others: ;a< that teachers weredis%issed on the sole asis of "nswornreports of their principals and witho"tevidence of their alleged fail"re to oey

the ret"rnDtoDwor3 orderH ;< that thecharge sheets failed to specify thepartic"lar charges or offenses allegedlyco%%ittedH ;c< that so%e teachers werenot f"rnished sworn co%plaints, andothers were s"spended witho"t anyfor%al chargesH ;d< that teachers whoatte%pted to ret"rn within a reasonaleti%e after notice of the ret"rnDtoDwor3order were not accepted ac3H andsi%ilar allegations.

Bhese are however denied and disp"tedy the p"lic respondents, who set forththeir own version, initially in theirseparate $o%%ents in oth cases and,later and in greater detail, in their$onsolidated 2e%orand"% of !ece%er

, *++(, s"pra, fro% which the fopassages are /"oted:

;'< &etitioners in G.R. )o. += an)o. ++( ad%it engaging in a;referred y se%antic interplaconcerted activity or %ass adirected against p"lic resp$ariQo eginning Septe%er *0,

2&SBA &etition, pp. , +H A$B &etiti**'


16/22

violations of $ivil Service Law, r"les andreg"lations. All of stri3ing teachers wereserved with the s"spension orders andthe change sheets notifying the% of thecharges and giving the% five ;< daysfro% receipt of the charge sheets withinwhich to file their respective answers.

5ith the filing of the ad%inistrative

co%plaints and the receipt of theanswers of so%e of the teachersinvolved, p"lic respondent $arino onOctoer 7, *++( iss"ed a 2e%orand"%for%ing an -nvestigation $o%%itteeco%posed of Atty, Reno $apinpin of!E$S Ad%inistrative Services as$hair%an !r. Alerto 2endo1a,representing the !ivision S"pervisors,Atty. Evangeline de $astro, representingthe $ity S"perintendent of Schools of2anila, and Atty. -saias 2eletorepresenting the )ational &&SBAOrgani1ation, as %e%ers. $opy of the

aforesaid 2e%orand"% is heretoattached as Anne> -.

Bhe co%%ittee was a"thori1ed to %eeteveryday, even as Special &rosec"torsfro% the !epart%ent of 6"stice on detailwith the !E$S were designated to handlethe prosec"tion d"ring the for%alhearings. ;-id.ec"tive Order )o. on the gro"nd that they were iss"the Office of the &resident witha"se of discretion and in violatheir constit"tional right to sec"ten"re.


18/22

Bhe facts are "ndisp"ted:

On J"ne (, *+70, for%er &resident$ora1on $. A/"ino, iss"ed E>ec"tiveOrder )o. *@0F estalishing theEcono%ic -ntelligence and -nvestigation#"rea" ;E--#< as part of the str"ct"ralorgani1ation of the 2inistry of 8inance.F=

Bhe E--# was designated to perfor% the

following f"nctions:

;a< Receive, gather and eval"ateintelligence reports and infor%ation andevidence on the nat"re, %odes ande>tent of illegal activities affecting thenational econo%y, s"ch as, "t notli%ited to, econo%ic saotage,s%"ggling, ta> evasion, and dollarDsalting, investigate the sa%e and aid inthe prosec"tion of casesH

;< $oordinate with e>ternal agencies in%onitoring the financial and econo%icactivities of persons or entities, whetherdo%estic or foreign, which %ayadversely affect national financialinterest with the goal of reg"lating,controlling or preventing said activitiesH

;c< &rovide all intelligence "nits ofoperating #"rea"s or Offices "nder the2inistry with the general fra%ewor3 andg"idelines in the cond"ct of intelligenceand investigating wor3sH

;d< S"pervise, %onitor and coordinate allthe intelligence and investigationoperations of the operating #"rea"s andOffices "nder the 2inistryH

;e< -nvestigate, hear and file, "ponclearance y the 2inister, antiDgraft andcorr"ption cases against personnel of the2inistry and its constit"ents "nitsH

;f< &erfor% s"ch other appropriatef"nctions as %ay e assigned y the2inister or his dep"ties.KF

-n a desire to achieve har%ony of effortsand to prevent possile conflicts a%ongagencies in the co"rse of their antiDs%"ggling operations, &resident A/"inoiss"ed 2e%orand"% Order )o. @@ on2arch *0, *+7+, providing, a%ongothers, that the E--# shall e the agencyof pri%ary responsiility for antiDs%"ggling operations in all land areasand inland waters and waterways o"tsidethe areas of sole 6"risdiction of the#"rea" of $"sto%s.KF'

Eleven years after, or on Jan"ary 0, @(((,&resident Joseph Estrada iss"edE>ec"tive Order )o. *+* entitled!eactivation of the Econo%ic-ntelligence and -nvestigation #"rea".KF02otivated y the fact that thedesignated f"nctions of the E--# are alsoeing perfor%ed y the other e>istingagencies of the govern%entK and thatthere is a need to constantly %onitorthe overlapping of f"nctionsK a%ong

these agencies, for%er &resident Estradaordered the deactivation of E--# and thetransfer of its f"nctions to the #"rea" of$"sto%s and the )ational #"rea" of-nvestigation.

2eanwhile, &resident Estrada iss"edE>ec"tive Order )o. *+'F7 creating the&residential AntiDS%"ggling Bas3 8orce

Ad"ana.KF+

Bhen the day feared y the E--#e%ployees ca%e. On 2arch @+, @(((,&resident Estrada iss"ed E>ec"tive Order)o. @@F*( providing that all E--#personnel occ"pying positions specifiedtherein shall e dee%ed separated fro%the service effective April (, @(((,p"rs"ant to a ona fide reorgani1ationres"lting to aolition, red"ndancy,%erger, division, or consolidation of

positions.F**

Agoni1ing over the loss of theire%ploy%ent, petitioners now co%eefore this $o"rt invo3ing o"r power of

6"dicial review of E>ec"tive Order )os.*+* and @@. Bhey anchor their petitionon the following arg"%ents:

A

E>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@ sho"lde ann"lled as they are "nconstit"tionalfor eing violative of Section @;ec"tive Order )os. *@@ are considered to effreorgani1ation of the E--#, reorgani1ation was %ade in ad fai

$.

Bhe &resident has no a"thority to the E--#.K

&etitioners contend that the iss"athe aforeD%entioned e>ec"tive ord;a< a violation of their right to sec"ten"reH ;< tainted with ad faith awere not act"ally intended to %a"rea"cracy %ore efficient "t tway to Bas3 8orce Ad"anaf"nctions of which are essentials"stantially the sa%e as that oand ;c< a "s"rpation of the po$ongress to decide whether or aolish the E--#.

Arg"ing in ehalf of respondentSolicitor General %aintains that: &resident en6oys the totality oe>ec"tive power provided "nder Se


19/22

* and 0, Article V-- of the $onstit"tion,th"s, he has the a"thority to iss"eE>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@H ;ec"tive orders were iss"ed inthe interest of national econo%y, toavoid d"plicity of wor3 and to strea%linethe f"nctions of the "rea"cracyH and ;cha"stad%inistrative re%edies, the standing ofcertain parties to s"e, for two reasons,WFeca"se of the de%ands of p"licinterest, incl"ding the need for stailityin the p"lic service,? and eca"se of theserio"s i%plications of these cases on thead%inistration of the &hilippine civil

service and the rights of p"lic servants.K

At first glance, it see%s that theresol"tion of this case hinges on the/"estion D !oes the deactivationK of E--#

constit"te aolitionK of an office9owever, after co%ing to ter%s with theprevailing law and 6"rispr"dence, we arecertain that the "lti%ate /"eries sho"lde N a< !oes the &resident have thea"thority to reorgani1e the e>ec"tivedepart%ent and, < 9ow sho"ld thereorgani1ation e carried o"t

S"rely, there e>ists a distinction etweenthe words deactivateK and aolish.K BodeactivateK %eans to render inactive orineffective or to rea3 "p y dischargingor reassigning personnel,F* while toaolishK %eans to do away with, toann"l, arogate or destroy co%pletely.F*= -n essence, aolition denotes anintention to do away with the officewholly and per%anently.F* Bh"s, whilein aolition, the office ceases to e>ist, thesa%e is not tr"e in deactivation wherethe office contin"es to e>ist, aleitre%aining dor%ant or inoperative. #e

that as it %ay, deactivation and aolitionare oth reorgani1ation %eas"res.

Bhe Solicitor General only invo3es theaove distinctions on the %ista3enass"%ption that the &resident has nopower to aolish an office.

Bhe general r"le has always een thatthe power to aolish a p"lic office is

lodged with the legislat"re.F*' Bhisproceeds fro% the legal precept that thepower to create incl"des the power todestroy. A p"lic office is either createdy the $onstit"tion, y stat"te, or ya"thority of law.F*0 Bh"s, e>cept where

the off ice was created y the$onstit"tion itself, it %ay e aolished ythe sa%e legislat"re that ro"ght it intoe>istence.F*7

Bhe e>ception, however, is that as far as"rea"s, agencies or offices in thee>ec"tive depart%ent are concerned, the&residentIs power of control %ay 6"stify

hi% to inactivate the f"nctions of apartic"lar office,F*+ or certain laws %aygrant hi% the road a"thority to carryo"t reorgani1ation %eas"res.F@( Bhecase in point is Larin v. E>ec"tiveSecretary.F@* -n this case, it was arg"edthat there is no law which e%powers the&resident to reorgani1e the #-R. -ndecreeing otherwise, this $o"rt s"stainedthe following legal asis, th"s:

-nitially, it is arg"ed that there is no law

yet which e%powers the &resident toiss"e E.O. )o. *@ or to reorgani1e the#-R.

5e do not agree.

> > > > > >

Section =7 of R.A. 0'= provides that:

Sec. =7. Scaling !own and &hase O"t ofActivities of Agencies 5ithin theE>ec"tive #ranch. N Bhe heads of

depart%ents, "rea"s and officeagencies are herey directed to itheir respective activities which alonger essential in the delivery ofservices and which %ay e scaledphased o"t or aolished, s"6ect service r"les and reg"lations. Act"al scaling down, phasing oaolition of the activities shaeffected p"rs"ant to $irc"lars or iss"ed for the p"rpose y the Of

the &resident.I

Said provision clearly %entions thof scaling down, phasing o"aolitionK of offices only and docover the creation of offices or tranf"nctions. )evertheless, the acreating and decentrali1ing is incl"the s"se/"ent provision of Sectwhich provides that:

Sec. '@. na"thori1ed organi1charges.D nless otherwise crealaw or directed y the &resident &hilippines, no organi1ational "changes in 3ey positions indepart%ent or agency shaa"thori1ed in their resorgani1ation str"ct"res and e fro% appropriations y this Act.I o"rs > > > > >

Another legal asis of E.O. )o. *@ isSection @(, #oo3 --- of E.O. )o. @+@ whichstates:

Sec. @(. Resid"al &owers. N nless$ongress provides otherwise, the&resident shall e>ercise s"ch otherpowers and f"nctions vested in the&resident which are provided for "nderthe laws and which are not specificallyen"%erated aove or which are notdelegated y the &resident in accordancewith law.I ;italic o"rsec"tive #ranch are directed ;a< tocond"ct a co%prehensive review of theirrespective %andates, %issions,o6ectives, f"nctions, progra%s, pro6ects,

activities and syste%s and proced"resH;< identify activities which are no longeressential in the delivery of p"licservices and which %ay e scaled down,phasedDo"t or aolishedH and ;c< adopt%eas"res that will res"lt in thestrea%lined organi1ation and i%provedoverall perfor%ance of their respectiveagencies.F@ Section 07 ends "p withthe %andate that the act"al strea%liningand prod"ctivity i%prove%ent in agency

organi1ation and operation shall eeffected p"rs"ant to $irc"lars or Ordersiss"ed for the p"rpose y the Office ofthe &resident.F@= Bhe law has spo3enclearly. 5e are left only with the d"ty tos"stain.

#"t of co"rse, the list of legal asisa"thori1ing the &resident to reorgani1eany depart%ent or agency in thee>ec"tive ranch does not have to endhere. 5e %"st not lose sight of the very

so"rce of the power N that whichconstit"tes an e>press grant of power.nder Section *, #oo3 --- of E>ec"tiveOrder )o. @+@ ;otherwise 3nown as theAd%inistrative $ode of *+70


21/22

re%oval violates the order of separation.F@+

&etitioners clai% that the deactivation ofE--# was done in ad faith eca"se fo"rdays after its deactivation, &residentEstrada created the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana.

5e are not convinced.

An e>a%ination of the pertinentE>ec"tive OrdersF( shows that thedeactivation of E--# and the creation of

Bas3 8orce Ad"ana were done in goodfaith. -t was not for the p"rpose ofre%oving the E--# e%ployees, "t toachieve the "lti%ate p"rpose of E.O. )o.*+*, which is econo%y. 5hile Bas3 8orceAd"ana was created to ta3e the place ofE--#, its creation does not entail e>penseto the govern%ent.

8irstly, there is no e%ploy%ent of newpersonnel to %an the Bas3 8orce. E.O.)o. *+' provides that the technical,ad%inistrative and special staffs of E--#are to e co%posed of people who arealready in the p"lic service, they einge%ployees of other e>isting agencies.

Bheir ten"re with the Bas3 8orce wo"ldonly e te%porary, i.e., only when theagency where they elong is called "ponto assist the Bas3 8orce. Since theire%ploy%ent with the Bas3 force is onlyy way of detail or assign%ent, theyretain their e%ploy%ent with the e>istingagencies. And sho"ld the need for the%

cease, they wo"ld e sent ac3 to theagency concerned.

Secondly, the thr"st of E.O. )o. *+' is tohave a s%all gro"p of %ilitary %en "nderthe direct control and s"pervision of the&resident as ase of the govern%entIsantiDs%"ggling ca%paign. S"ch as%aller ase has the necessary powers

*< to enlist the assistance of anydepart%ent, "rea", or office and to "setheir respective personnel, facilities andreso"rcesH and @< to select and recr"itpersonnel fro% within the &SG and -SA8&for assign%ent to the Bas3 8orce.KOvio"sly, the idea is to enco"rage the"tili1ation of personnel, facilities andreso"rces of the already e>istingdepart%ents, agencies, "rea"s, etc.,instead of %aintaining an independentoffice with a whole set of personnel andfacilities. Bhe E--# had proven itself"rdenso%e for the govern%ent eca"se

it %aintained separate offices in everyregion in the &hilippines.

And thirdly, it is evident fro% the yearly"dget appropriation of the govern%entthat the creation of the Bas3 8orceAd"ana was especially intended to lessenE--#Is e>penses. Bracing fro% the yearlyGeneral Appropriations Act, it appearsthat the allotted a%o"nt for the E--#Isgeneral ad%inistration, s"pport, andoperations for the year *++, was

&*@7,(*,(((HF* for *++',&*7@,*',(((HF@ for *++7,&@*+,77+,(((HF and, for *+++,&@7,0=,(((.F= Bhese a%o"nts werefar aove the &(,(((,(((F allocation

to the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana for the year@(((.

5hile asically, the f"nctions of the E--#have devolved "pon the Bas3 8orceAd"ana, we find the latter to haveadditional new powers. Bhe Bas3 8orceAd"ana, eing co%posed of ele%entsfro% the &residential Sec"rity Gro"p

;&SG< and -ntelligence Service Ar%ed8orces of the &hilippines ;-SA8&


22/22

5hile we cast a co%%iserating loo3 "ponthe plight of all the E--# e%ployeeswhose lives perhaps are now torn with"ncertainties, we cannot ignore the"nfort"nate reality that o"r govern%entis a lso attl ing the i%pact of apl"%%eting econo%y. nless thegovern%ent is given the chance torec"perate y instit"ting econo%y andefficiency in its syste%, the E--# will note the last agency to s"ffer the i%pact.

5e cannot fr"strate valid %eas"reswhich are designed to re"ild thee>ec"tive depart%ent.

59ERE8ORE, the petition is herey!E)-E!. )o costs.

SO OR!ERE!.

case digests 17

Documents