NALTDRA, petitioner, vs. CSC and Garcia, respondents.

FACTS: Respondent Violeta Garcia, a Bachelor of Laws graduate and a first grade civil service eligible was appointed in the Land Registration Commission (LRC) as Deputy Register of Deeds II under permanent status from 1977 to September 1984. However, by virtue of E.O. No. 649 which took effect on February 9, 1981, authorized the restructuring of the Land Registration Commission to National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA). As a result, her (Violeta Garcia) employment status became temporary for not being a member of the Philippine Bar. She appealed to the Secretary of Justice but it was denied. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) in its Resolution dated June 30, 1988, directed that private respondent Garcia be restored to her position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or its equivalent in the NALTDRA. It held that "under the vested right theory the new requirement of BAR membership to qualify for permanent appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II or higher as mandated under said Executive Order, would not apply to her (private respondent Garcia) but only to the filling up of vacant lawyer positions on or after February 9, 1981, the date said Executive Order took effect." Since private respondent Garcia had been holding the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II from 1977 to September 1984, she should not be affected by the Executive Order No. 649. Petitioner NALTDRA filed this present petition to assail the validity of the CSC Resolution. ISSUE: Whether or not the new qualification prescribed for appointment to the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II under E.O. No. 649 should be applied to those who were already in the service at the time of the issuance and implementation of the said Executive Order. RULING: Yes, E.O. No. 649 should be applied. The new qualification was not intended to remove her from office but rather, it was a criterion imposed concomitant with a valid reorganization measure. A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In this case, E.O. No. 649 was enacted to improve the services and better systematize the operation of the Land Registration Commission. To this end, the requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key positions in the NALTDRA was imposed to meet the changing circumstances and new development of the times. Private respondent Garcia who formerly held the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II did not have such qualification. It is thus clear that she cannot hold any key position in the NALTDRA.

Development Officer or any such equivalent rank under the staffing pattern of DBP. The order for reappointment was premised on the findings of the CSC that the action of the DBP to issue temporary appointments to all DBP personnel in order to allow for the maximum flexibility in evaluating the performance of incumbents is not in accord with civil service law rules. Accordingly, to issue a temporary appointment to one who has been on permanent status before will deprive the employee of benefits accorded to permanent employees and will adversely affect his security of tenure." DBP filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 1989 alleging that the issuance of temporary appointments to all the DBP employees was purely an interim arrangement; that in spite of the temporary appointment, they continued to enjoy the salary, allowances and other benefits corresponding to permanent employees; that there can be no impairment of herein petitioner's security of tenure since the new DBP charter expressly provides that "qualified personnel of the bank may be appointed to appropriate positions in the new staffing pattern and those not so appointed are deemed separated from the service;" that petitioner was evaluated and comparatively assessed under a rating system approved by the respondent commission; and that petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process of law considering that, although several appeals were received by the Final Review Committee from other employees similarly situated, herein petitioner never appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary appointment although he was advised to do so by his direct supervisor. On April 10, 1990, CSC rendered the questioned resolution setting aside its previous decision and affirming the separation of herein petitioner. Hence this petition. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the reorganization implemented by DBP is valid as it violates petitioner's right to security of tenure; and (2) Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of due process. RULING: (1) Yes, the reorganization implemented by the DBP is valid. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. No less than the Constitution itself in Section 16 of the Transitory Provisions, together with Sections 33 and 34 of Executive Order No. 81 and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656, support this conclusion with the declaration that all those not so appointed in the implementation of said reorganization shall be deemed separated from the service with the concomitant recognition of their entitlement to appropriate separation benefits and/or retirement plans of the reorganized government agency. Thus, it can safely be concluded that indeed the reorganization was attended by good faith, ergo, valid. The dismissal of herein petitioner is a removal for cause which, therefore, does not violate his security of tenure. (2) Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 provides that "no officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice and hearing." There is no question that while dismissal due to a bona fide reorganization is recognized as a valid cause, this does not justify a detraction from the mandatory requirement of notice and hearing. However, it is equally true and it is a basic rule of due process that "what the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard." There is no violation of procedural due process even where no hearing was conducted for as long as the party was given a chance to present his evidence and defend himself. The records show that petitioner, although several appeals were received by the Final Review Committee from other employees similarly situated, never appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary appointment although he was advised to do so by his direct supervisor. Consequently, petitioner cannot, by his own inaction, legally claim that he was denied due process of law.

LUIS B. DOMINGO, respondents.

petitioner,

vs.

DBP

and

CSC,

FACTS: Petitioner was employed by DBP as Senior Training and Career Development Officer on permanent status from 1979 to December 1986. With the passage of E.O. No. 81 and Board Resolution No. 304-87, DBP undertook the evaluation and comparative assessment of all its personnel under the CSC approved New Performance Appraisal System, a peer and control rating process which served as an assessment tool of DBP's screening process. Petitioner Domingo was issued a temporary appointment on January 2, 1987 for a period of one (1) year, which was renewed for another period up to November 30, 1988. Thereafter, in a memorandum dated November 23, 1988 issued by the Final Review Committee, petitioner got a performance rating of "below average," by reason of which his appointment was "made to lapse." Consequently, petitioner filed with the CSC a verified complaint against DBP for illegal dismissal. He alleged that his dismissal constituted a violation of the Civil Service Law against the issuance of temporary appointments to permanent employees, as well as of his right to security of tenure and due process. On November 27, 1989, CSC issued a resolution directing the reappointment of Mr. Domingo as Senior Training and Career