G.R. No.

L-17287 1965

June 30,

JAIME HERNANDEZ, Sec e!" # o$ %&n"nce, ELE'(ERI) *A+A+AS, *o,,&--&one o$ *u-!o,-, JAMES H. .EE%E, Ac!&n/ D& ec!o o$ Secu &!#, "n0 J'AN *. +AJ) E1ecu!&2e Sec e!" #, 3e!&!&one -, 2-. E+I%ANI) (. 4ILLEGAS "n0 !5e H)N. *)'R( )% A++EALS, e-3on0en!-.

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

Office of the petitioners.

Solicitor

General

for

Antonio J. Villegas for respondents.

REGALA, J.:

On Jan"ary +, *+,7, Secretary of 8inance Jai%e 9ernande1 proposed to the Office of the &resident the per%anent appoint%ent of Villegas as Arrastre S"perintendent, stating in his letter that :this ;the proposed appoint%ent< involves a change of designation and stat"s fro% !irector for Sec"rity which is confidential in nat"re to Arrastre S"perintendent, a classified position.: A few days later, the appoint%ent of Ja%es 4eefe to the position of !irector for Sec"rity was li3ewise proposed.

-t appears that Villegas did not 3now of his appoint%ent and that of 4eefe "ntil 8e r"ary @7, *+,7. On this day, he learned that 4eefe was eing paid the salary for !irector for Sec"rity and, on f"rther in/"iry, fo"nd that he had een appointed Arrastre S"perintendent. On 2arch A, *+,7, therefore, he served notice on $"sto%s $o%%issioner Ele"terio $apapas that he was res"%ing the d"ties and f"nctions of his office as !irector for Sec"rity. 9e also wrote the A"ditor General, Secretary 9ernande1 and $o%%issioner $apapas, the #"dget $o%%issioner, and the $ivil Service $o%%issioner, as3ing the% to disapprove the pro%otional appoint%ent of 4eefe to the post of !irector for Sec"rity.

hi% y the, $"sto%s $o%%issioner C is to coordinate the f"nctions of sec"rity, patrol and investigation divisions in the $"sto%s #"rea" all of which positions have een declared y E>ec"tive Order to e pri%arily confidential then the Office of the !irector for Sec"rity %"st itself e considered pri%arily confidential. Bhey then 6"stify, the transfer of Villegas to the Arrastre Service on the asis of the state%ent in !e los Santos v. 2allare. 70 &hil. @7+, to the effect that position which are pri%arily confidential, policyDdeter%ining and highly technical :are e>cl"ded fro% the %erit syste% and dis%issal at pleas"re of officers and e%ployees appointed therein is allowed y the $onstit"tion.:

Epifanio Villegas, a lawyer and civil service eligi le, was appointed !irector for Sec"rity of the #"rea" of $"sto%s, with co%pensation at &',(((, effective )ove% er *, *+,,. -n *+,', he was sent to the .nited States to st"dy enforce%ent techni/"es and c"sto%s practices "nder the technical assistance progra% of the )ational Econo%ic $o"ncil and the -nternational $ooperation Ad%inistration.

Villegas ret"rned to the &hilippines in J"ne, *+,0. Shortly thereafter, he was te%porarily detailed to the Arrastre

On Jan"ary *=, *+,7, E>ec"tive Secretary J"an $. &a6o advised Secretary 9ernande1 that the &resident had approved the proposed appoint%ents of Villegas and 4eefe. Accordingly, Villegas and 4eefe?s appoint%ents, effective Jan"ary *, *+,7, were prepared and later signed y Secretary 9ernande1. As the $o"rt of Appeals o served 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 other plaintiff was de%oted to the ran3 of arrastre s"perintendent.: ;E%phasis s"pplied<

5hen all else failed, Villegas filed this action for /"o warranto in the $o"rt of 8irst -nstance of 2anila. Bhe co"rt gave 6"dg%ent for Villegas with right to collect ac3pay as !irector for Sec"rity fro% Jan"ary *, *+,7. -ts decision was s" se/"ently affir%ed y the $o"rt of Appeals.

On the other hand, in s"staining Villegas? right to the office of !irector for Sec"rity, the $o"rt of Appeals relied %ainly on Section '0* of the Revised Ad%inistrative $ode C

Bhe following officers and e%ployees constit"te the "nclassified service:

Bhe Secretary of 8inance, the $"sto%s $o%%issioner, the inc"% ent !irector for $"sto%s Sec"rity and the E>ec"tive Secretary have appealed to this $o"rt raising the following iss"es: ;*<, 5hether the office of !irector for Sec"rity in the #"rea" of $"sto%s, is a pri%arily confidential position and ;@< whether the !irector for Sec"rity can e transferred to another position witho"t ca"se. Bheir theory is that since the wor3 of the !irector C which has een delegated to

>>>

>>>

>>>

;*< &ositions which %ay e declared y the &resident of the &hilippines, "pon reco%%endation of the $o%%issioner of $ivil Service, as policyDdeter%ining, pri%arily confidential, or highly technical.

in reaching the following concl"sion:

... the only a"thority who, y constit"tional and, legal provisions, is co%petent to classify a position into pri%ary confidential is the &resident. Bhe heads of depart%ents and the $o%%issioner of $ivil Service can only reco%%end or %a3e co%%ents. Bhe fact that a proposal to appoint to a certain position, that of arrastre s"perintendent, has een favora ly reco%%ended and endorsed y the depart%ent heads and the chiefs of offices and approved y the Office of the &resident does not go to show that an entirely different position, that of !irector for Sec"rity has een classified into category of pri%arily confidential.

even ass"%ing the position to e, it is nevertheless s" 6ect to the $onstit"tional provision that :)o officer or e%ployee in the $ivil Service shall e re%oved or s"spended e>cept for ca"se.: ;&hil. $onst., Art. E--, sec. =< Villan"evas? re%oval, is, therefore, concededly witho"t ca"se. Bh"s, only recently, this $o"rt reiterated in $orp"s v. $"aderno, G.R. )o. LD@A0@*, 2arch A*, *+',, the view that C

Bhe evidence of the defendantsD appellants yield no indication that the position of !irector for Sec"rity has ever een classified into pri%arily confidential according to the proced"re laid down y the law and the $onstit"tion. -t res"lts that the re%oval of the plaintiff fro% the said position witho"t 6"stifia le ca"se and his transfer to the position of arrastre s"perintendent are illegal ... . $onse/"ently the appoint%ent of defendant 4eefe to the position of !irector for Sec"rity, the effect of which is to e>cl"de and re%ove the plaintiff fro% the said position, is also illegal.

FBGhe $onstit"tional provisions %erely constit"te the policyDdeter%ining, pri%arily confidential, and highly technical positions as e>ceptions to the r"le re/"iring appoint%ents in the $ivil Service to e %ade on the asis of %erit a fitness as deter%ined fro% co%petitive e>a%inations ;sec. *, s"pra< ;Jover vs. #orra, =+ O.G. F)o. 0G @0,,<, "t that the $onstit"tion does not e>e%pt s"ch positions fro% the operation of the principle e%phatically and categorically en"%erated in section = of Article E-- that C

Bhe state%ent in !e los Santos v. 2allare, s"pra, to the effect that appoint%ent to any of the three classes of positions is ter%ina le at the will of the appointing power, %"st e dee%ed a %ere o iter. -t has een correctly critici1ed as %isleading. 8or if these three special positions do not really elong to the $ivil Service, the $onstit"tion wo"ld not have specifically na%ed the% as an e>ception to the general r"le that all appoint%ents %"st e %ade on the asis of %erit and fitness to e deter%ined y co%petitive e>a%inations. ;Sinco, &hilippine &olitical Law =** F**th ed. *+'@G< -ndeed, in the $orp"s case, this state%ent was held as not controlling, the r"ling in the !e los Santos case, where the state%ent appears, eing that a city engineer who elongs to the "nclassified service is protected y the sec"rity of ten"re provisions of the $onstit"tion.

that it has een lost in this case C the inc"% ent is entitled to contin"e in office.

5e therefore hold that Villegas? re%oval fro% the office of !irector for Sec"rity is witho"t ca"se and is therefore illegal.

59ERE8ORE, the decision appealed fro% is affir%ed, witho"t prono"nce%ent as to costs.

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

and which recogni1es no e>ception.

8or o"r p"rpose, we do not need to consider the position involved in this case is pri%arily confidential, eca"se,

Bhis view finds confir%ation in sections A and , of the $ivil Service Act of *+,+ ;Rep. Act )o. @@'(<.

-t is to e "nderstood of co"rse that officials and e%ployees holding pri%arily confidential positions contin"e only for so long as confidence in the% end"res. Bhe ter%ination of their official relation can e 6"stified on the gro"nd of loss of confidence eca"se in that case their cessation fro% office involves no re%oval "t %erely the e>piration of the ter% of office C two different ca"ses for the ter%ination of official relations recogni1ed in the Law of &" lic Officers. ;See, e.g., $orp"s v. $"aderno, s"praH Al a vs. Evangelista, ,A O.G. *=,@H 8ernande1 v. Ledes%a, G.R. )o. LD*770+, 2arch A(, *+'A. $ontra 9o6illa v. 2arino, G.R. )o. LD@(,0=, 8e . @', *+',.< #"t the point is that as long as confidence in the% end"res C and it has een shown

6G.R. No. 112775. )c!o8e 16, 19979

A:'ILIN) (. LARIN, 3e!&!&one , 2-. (HE E;E*'(I4E SE*RE(AR<, SE*RE(AR< )% %INAN*E, *)MMISSI)NER )% (HE ='REA' )% IN(ERNAL RE4EN'E AND (HE *)MMI((EE *REA(ED () IN4ES(IGA(E (HE ADMINIS(RA(I4E *)M+LAIN( AGAINS( A:'ILIN) (. LARIN, *)M+)SED )% %R'MEN*I) A. LAG'S(AN, J)SE =. ALEJANDRIN) "n0 JAIME M. MAZA, e-3on0en!-.

!E$-S-O)

Li3ewise, petitioner see3s to assail the legality of E>ec"tive Order )o. *A@, iss"ed y &resident Ra%os on Octo er @', *++A, which provides for the JStrea%lining of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e,K and of its i%ple%enting r"les iss"ed y the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e, na%ely: a< Ad%inistrative Order )o. =D+A, which provides for the JOrgani1ational Str"ct"re and State%ent of General 8"nctions of Offices in the )ational OfficeK and < Ad%inistrative Order )o. ,D+A, which provides for JRedefining the Areas of J"risdiction and Ren"% ering of Regional And !istrict Offices.K

:59ERE8ORE, 6"dg%ent is now rendered in $ri%inal $ases )os. *=@(7 and *=@(+ convicting acc"sed Assistant $o%%issioner for Specific Ba> A/"ilino B. Larin, $hief of the Alcohol ta> !ivision BEO!ORO &. &ARE)O, and $hief of the Reven"e acco"nting !ivision &OBE)$-A)A 2. EVA)GEL-SBA:

>>>

-t is clear fro% the foregoing that 2r. Larin has fo"nd eyond reasona le do" t to have co%%itted acts constit"ting grave %iscond"ct. .nder the $ivil Service Laws and R"les which re/"ire only preponderance of evidence, grave %iscond"ct is p"nisha le y dis%issal.I

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

SO OR!ERE!.K

BORRES, JR., J.:

Bhe antecedent facts of the instant case as s"ccinctly related y the Solicitor General are as follows:

$hallenge in this petition is the validity of petitionerIs re%oval fro% service as Assistant $o%%issioner of the E>cise Ba> Service of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e. -ncidentally, he /"estions 2e%orand"% order no. *'= iss"ed y the Office of the &resident, which provides for the creation of JA $o%%ittee to -nvestigate the Ad%inistrative $o%plaint Against A/"ilino B. Larin, Assistant $o%%issioner, #"rea" of -nternal Reven"eK as well as the investigation %ade in p"rs"ance thereto and Ad%inistrative Order )o. *(* dated !ece% er @, *++A which fo"nd hi% g"ilty of grave %iscond"ct in the ad%inistrative charge and i%posed "pon hi% the penalty of dis%issal fro% office.

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

On Septe% er *7, *++@, F*G a decision was rendered y the Sandigan ayan convicting herein petitioner A/"ilino B. Larin, Reven"e Specific Ba> Officer, then Assistant $o%%isioner of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e and his coDacc"sed ;e>cept J"stino E. Gal an, Jr.< of the cri%es of violation of Section @'7 ;=< of the )ational -nternal Reven"e $ode and Section A ;e< of R.A. A(*+ in $ri%inal $ases )os. *=@(7D*=@(+, entitled J&eople of the &hilippines, &laintiff vs. A/"ilino B. Larin, Beodoro B. &areno, J"stino E. Gal an, Jr. and &otenciana ). Evangelista, Acc"sed, J the dispositive portion of the 6"dg%ent reads:

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

J A $o%%ittee is here y created to investigate the ad%inistrative co%plaint filed against A/"ilino B. Larin, Assistant $o%%issioner, #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e, to e co%posed of:

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

Assistant E>ec"tive Legislation

Secretary

for

Bhe cases against &areno and Evangelista are eing acted "pon y the #"rea" of -nternal reven"e as they nonD presidential appointees.

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

&residential Assistant

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

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

-nvestigating $o%%ittee. he asserts that,

-n said latter, 2eanwhile, the &resident iss"ed the challenged E>ec"tive order )o. *A@ dated Octo er @', *++A which %andates for the strea%lining of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e. .nder said order, so%e positions and f"nctions are either a olished, rena%ed, decentrali1ed or transferred to other offices, while other offices are also created. Bhe E>cise Ba> Service or the Specific Ba> Service, of which petitioner was the Assistant $o%%issioner, was one of those offices that was a olished y said e>ec"tive order.

Assistant services

co%%issioner

of

-nspector

#"rea" of -nternal Reven"e

L&residential 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'= dated A"g"st @,, *++A, a >ero> copy of which is hereto attached for yo"r ready reference, created an -nvestigation $o%%ittee to loo3 into the charges against 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.

LBhe case eing s" D6"dice, - %ay not , therefore, co%%ent on the %erits of iss"es involved for fear of eing cited in conte%pt of $o"rt. Bhis position paper is th"s li%ited to f"rnishing the $o%%ittee pertinent doc"%ents s" %itted with the S"pre%e $o"rt and other tri "nal which too3 cogni1ance of the case in the past, as follows:

Bhe $o%%ittee shall have the powers and prerogatives of ;an< investigating co%%ittee "nder the ad%inistrative $ode of *+70 incl"ding the power to s"%%on witnesses, ad%inister oath or ta3e testi%ony or evidence relevant to the investigation y s" poena ad testificand"% and s" poena d"ces tec"%:

Bhe co%%ittee has its possession a certified tr"e copy of the !ecision of the Sandigan ayan in the a oveD%entioned cases.

>>> Bhe corresponding i%ple%enting r"les of E>ec"tive Order )o. *A@, na%ely, reven"e Ad%inistrative Orders )os. =D+A and ,D+A, were s" se/"ently iss"ed . y the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e.

>>>

&"rs"ant to &residential 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'=, yo" are here y directed to file yo"r position paper on the afore%entioned charges within seven ;0< days fro% receipt hereof >>>.

Bhe $o%%ittee shall convene i%%ediately, cond"ct the investigation in the %ost e>peditio"s %anner, and ter%inate the sa%e as soon as practica le fro% its first sched"led date of hearing.

8ail"re to file the re/"ired position paper shall e considered as a waiver on yo"r part 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 the doc"%ents and records at hand.I

Bhe foregoing doc"%ents readily show that - a% not ad%inistratively lia le or cri%inally c"lpa le of the charges leveled against %e, and that the aforesaid cases are %ere prosec"tions ca"sed to e filed and are eing orchestrated y ta>payers who were pre6"diced y %"ltiD%illion peso assess%ents - ca"sed to e iss"ed against the% in %y official capacity as Assistant $o%%issioner, E>cise Ba> office of #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e.I

On Octo er @0, *++A, or one day after the pro%"lgation of E>ec"tive Order )o.*A@, the &resident appointed the following as #-R Assistant $o%%issioners:

>>>K -n co%pliance, petitioner s" %itted a letter dated Septe% er A(, *++A which was addressed to Atty. 8r"%encio A. Lag"stan , the $hair%an of the

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

-n the sa%e letter, petitioner clai%s that the ad%inistrative co%plaint against hi% is already arred: a< on 6"risdictional gro"nd as the Office of the O% "ds%an had already ta3en cogni1ance of the case and had ca"sed the filing only of the cri%inal charges against hi%, < y res 6"dicata, c< do" le 6eopardy, and d< eca"se to proceed with the case wo"ld e red"ndant, oppressive and a plain persec"tion against hi%.

*. #ernardo A. 8riane1a

@. !o%inador L. Gal"ra

A. Jai%e !. Gon1ales

=. Lilia $. G"iller%o

,. Ri1alina S. 2agalona

On April *0, *++' and while the instant petition is pending, this $o"rt set aside the conviction of the petitioner in $ri%inal $ase )os. *=@(7 and *=@(+.

'. Victorino $. 2a%alateo

0. Jai%e 2. 2asa

7. Antonio ). &angilinan

+. 2elchor S. Ra%os

*(. Joel L. BanDBorres

$onse/"ently, the president, in the assailed Ad%inistrative Order )o. *(* dated !ece% er @, *++A, fo"nd petitioner g"ilty of grave %iscond"ct in the ad%inistrative charge and i%posed "pon hi% the penalty of dis%issal with forfeit"re of his leave credits and retire%ent enefits incl"ding dis/"alification for reappoint%ent in the govern%ent service.

-n his petition, petitioner challenged the a"thority of the &resident to dis%iss hi% fro% office. 9e arg"ed that in so far as presidential appointees who are $areer E>ec"tive Service Officers are concerned, the &resident e>ercises only the power of control not the power to re%ove. 9e also averred that the ad%inistrative investigation cond"cted "nder 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'= is void as it violated his right to d"e process. According to hi%, the letter of the $o%%ittee dated Septe% er *0, *++A and his position paper dated Septe% er A(, *++A are not s"fficient for p"rposes of co%plying with the re/"ire%ents of d"e process. 9e alleged that he was not infor%ed of the ad%inistrative charges leveled against hi% nor was he given official notice of his dis%issal.

!epart%ent on the asis of E.O. )o. *A@ is tainted with ad faith in apparent violation of Section @ of R.A. '',', otherwise 3nown as the Act &rotecting the Sec"rity of Ben"re of $ivil Service Officers and E%ployees in the -%ple%entation of Govern%ent Reorgani1ation.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed directly with this $o"rt the instant petition on !ece% er *A, *++A to /"estion asically his alleged "nlawf"l re%oval fro% office.

&etitioner li3ewise clai%ed that he was re%oved as a res"lt of the reorgani1ation %ade y the E>ec"tive !epart%ent in the #-R p"rs"ant to E>ec"tive Order )o. *A@. Bh"s, he assailed said E>ec"tive Order )o. *A@ and its i%ple%enting r"les, na%ely, Reven"e Ad%inistrative Orders =D+A and ,D+A for eing "ltra vires. 9e clai%ed that there is yet no law enacted y $ongress which a"thori1es the reorgani1ation y the E>ec"tive !epart%ent of e>ec"tive agencies, partic"larly the #"rea" of -nternal reven"e. 9e said that the reorgani1ation so"ght to e effected y the E>ec"tive

On the other hand, respondents contended that since petitioner is the presidential appointee, he falls "nder the disciplining a"thority of the &resident. Bhey also contended that E.O. )o. *A@ and its i%ple%enting r"les were validly iss"ed p"rs"ant to Sections =7 and '@ of Rep" lic Act )o. 0'=,. Apart fro% this, the other legal ases of E.O. )o. *A@ as stated in its prea% le are Section 'A of E.O )o.*@0 ;Reorgani1ing the 2inistry of 8inance<, and Section @(, #oo3 --- of E.O. )o. @+@, otherwise 3nown as the Ad%inistrative $ode of *+70. -n addition, it is clear that in Section ** of R.A )o.'',' f"t"re reorgani1ation is e>pressly conte%plated and nothing in said law that prohi its s" se/"ent reorgani1ation thro"gh an e>ec"tive order. Significantly, respondents clarified that petitioner was not dis%issed y virt"e of EO *A@. Respondents clai%ed that he was re%oved fro% office eca"se he was fo"nd g"ilty of grave %iscond"ct in the ad%inistrative cases filed against hi%.

consider these /"estions : a< 5ho has the power to discipline the petitionerO, < 5ere the proceedings ta3en p"rs"ant to 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'= in accord with d"e processO, c< 5hat is the effect of petitionerIs ac/"ittal in the cri%inal case to his ad%inistrative chargeO d< !oes the &resident have the power to reorgani1e the #-R or to iss"e the /"estioned E.O. )O. *A@O, e< -s the reorgani1ation of #-R p"rs"ant to E.O. )o. *A@ tainted with ad faithO

Bhe "lti%ate iss"e to e resolved in the instant case falls on the deter%ination of the validity of petitionerIs dis%issal fro% office. -ncidentally, in order to resolve this %atter, it is i%perative that 5e

At the o"tset, it is worthy to note that the position of the Assistant $o%%issioner of the #-R is part of the $areer E>ec"tive Service.F@G .nder the law,FAG $areer E>ec"tive Service officers, na%ely .ndersecretary, Assistant Secretary, #"rea" director, Assistant #"rea" !irector, Regional !irector, Assistant Regional !irector, $hief of !epart%ent Service and other officers of e/"ivalent ran3 as %ay e identified y the $areer E>ec"tive Service #oard, are all appointed y the &resident. $oncededly, petitioner was appointed as Assistant $o%%issioner in Jan"ary, *+70 y then &resident A/"ino. Bh"s, petitioner is a presidential appointee who elongs to career service of the $ivil Service. #eing a presidential appointee, he co%es "nder the direct diciplining a"thority of the &resident. Bhis is in line with the well settled principle that the Jpower to re%ove is inherent in the power to appointK conferred to the &resident y Section *', Article V-- of the $onstit"tion. Bh"s, it is inel"cta ly clear that 2e%orand"% Order )o. *'=, which created a co%%ittee to investigate the ad%inistrative charge against petitioner, was iss"ed p"rs"ant to the power of

re%oval of the &resident. Bhis power of re%oval, however, is not an a sol"te one which accepts no reservation. -t %"st e pointed o"t that petitioner is a career service officer. .nder the Ad%inistrative $ode of *+70, career service is characteri1ed y the e>istence of sec"rity of ten"re, as contraD disting"ished fro% nonDcareer service whose 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 or to the d"ration of a partic"lar pro6ect for which p"rpose the e%ploy%ent was %ade. As a career service officer, petitioner en6oys the right to sec"rity of ten"re. )o less than the *+70 $onstit"tion g"arantees the right of sec"rity of ten"re of the e%ployees of the civil service. Specifically, Section A' of &.!. )o. 7(0, as a%ended, otherwise 3nown as $ivil Service !ecree of the &hilippines, is e%phatic that career service officers and e%ployees who en6oy sec"rity of ten"re %ay e re%oved only for any of the ca"ses en"%erated in said law. -n other words, the fact that the petitioner is a presidential appointee does not give the appointing a"thority the license to re%ove hi% at will or at his pleas"re for it is an ad%itted fact that he is li3ewise a career service officer who "nder the law is the recipient of ten"rial protection, th"s, %ay only e re%oved for a ca"se and in accordance with proced"ral d"e process.

Altho"gh the proceedings ta3en co%plied with the re/"ire%ents of proced"ral d"e process, this $o"rt, however, considers that petitioner was not dis%issed for a valid ca"se.

pertinent portion of the 6"dg%ent of the Sandigan ayan reads:

-t sho"ld e noted that what precipitated the creation of the investigative co%%ittee to loo3 into the ad%inistrative charge against petitioner is his conviction y the Sandigan ayan in cri%inal $ase )os. *=@(7 and *=@(+. As ad%itted y the respondents, the ad%inistrative case against petitioner is ased on the Sandigan ayan !ecision of Septe% er *7, *++@. Bh"s, in the Ad%inistrative Order )o. *(* iss"ed y Senior !ep"ty E>ec"tive Secretary M"is"% ing which fo"nd petitioner g"ilty of grave %iscond"ct, it clearly states that:

:As a ove pointed o"t, the acc"sed had conspired in 3nowingly preparing false %e%oranda and certification in order to effect a fra"d "pon ta>es d"e to the govern%ent. #y their separate acts which had res"lted in an appropriate ta> credit of &*7(,0(*,'7@.(( in favor of Band"ay. Bhe govern%ent had een defra"ded of a ta> reven"e D for the f"ll a%o"nt, if one is to loo3 at the avail%ents or "tili1ation thereof ;E>hi its ?AA? to ?AADA*Da?<, or for a s" stantial portion thereof ;&0A,(((,(((.((< if we are to rely on the letter of !ep"ty $o%%issioner E"fracio !. Santos ;E>hi its ?@*? for all the acc"sed<.

:Bhis pertains to the ad%inistrative charge against Assistant $o%%issioner A/"ilino B. Larin of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e, for grave %iscond"ct y virt"e of a 2e%orand"% signed y Acting Secretary Leong of the !epart%ent of 8inance, on the asis of decision handed down y the 9on. Sandigan ayan convicting Larin, et. al. in $ri%inal $ases )o. *=@(7 and *=@(+.:F=G

As pointed o"t a ove, the confl"ence of acts and o%issions co%%itted y acc"sed Larin, &areno and Evangelista ade/"ately prove conspiracy a%ong the% for no other p"rpose than to ring a o"t a ta> credit which Band"ay did not deserve. Bhese %isrepresentations as to how %"ch Band"ay had paid in ad valore% ta>es o vio"sly constit"ted a fra"d of ta> reven"e of the govern%ent >>>.?F,G

cannot e held negligent in relying on the certification of a coDe/"al "nit in the #-R, < it is not inc"% ent "pon Larin to go eyond the certification %ade y the Reven"e Acco"nting !ivision that Band"ay !istillery, -nc. had paid the ad valore% ta>es, c< there is nothing irreg"lar or anything false in Larin?s %arginal note on the %e%orand"% addressed to &areno, the $hief of Alcohol Ba> !ivision who was also one of the acc"sed, "t event"ally ac/"itted, in the said cri%inal cases, and d< there is no proof of act"al agree%ent etween the acc"sed, incl"ding petitioner, to co%%it the illegal acts charged. 5e are e%phatic in o"r resol"tion in said cases that there is nothing :illegal with the acts co%%itted y the petitioner;s<.: 5e also declare that :there is no showing that petitioner;s< had acted irreg"larly, or perfor%ed acts o"tside of his ;their< official f"nctions.: Significantly, these acts which 5e categorically declare to e not "nlawf"l and i%proper in G.R. )os. *(7(A0DA7 and G.R. )os. *(0**+D@( are the very sa%e acts for which petitioner is held to e ad%inistratively responsi le. Any charge of %alfeasance or %isfeasance on the part of the petitioner is clearly elied y o"r concl"sion in said cases. -n the light of this decisive prono"nce%ent, 5e see no reason for the ad%inistrative charge to contin"e D it %"st, th"s, e dis%issed.

5as petitioner then re%oved fro% office for a legal ca"se "nder a valid proceedingO

-n a n"tshell, the cri%inal cases against petitioner refer to his alleged violation of Section @'7 ;=< of the )ational -nternal Reven"e $ode and of section A;e< of R.A. )o.A(*+ as a conse/"ence of his act of favora ly reco%%ending the grant of ta> credit to Band"ay !istillery, -nc.. Bhe

9owever, it %"st e stressed at this 6"nct"re that the conviction of petitioner y the Sandigan ayan was set aside y this co"rt in o"r decision pro%"lgated on April *0, *++' in G.R. )os. *(7(A0DA7 and *(0**+D@(. 5e specifically r"led in no "ncertain ter%s that : a< petitioner

5e are not "naware of the r"le that since ad%inistrative cases are independent fro% cri%inal actions for the sa%e act or o%ission, the dis%issal or ac/"ittal of the cri%inal charge does not foreclose the instit"tion of ad%inistrative action nor carry with it the relief fro%

ad%inistrative lia ility.F'G 9owever, the circ"%stantial setting of the instant case sets it %iles apart fro% the foregoing r"le and placed it well within the e>ception. $orollarily, where the very asis of the ad%inistrative case against petitioner is his conviction in the cri%inal action which was later on set aside y this co"rt "pon a categorical and clear findings that the acts for which he was ad%inistratively held lia le are not "nlawf"l and irreg"lar, the ac/"ittal of the petitioner in the cri%inal case necessarily entails the dis%issal of the ad%inistrative action against hi%, eca"se in s"ch a case, there is no asis nor 6"stifia le reason to %aintain the ad%inistrative s"it.

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

As stated earlier, with the iss"ance of E>ec"tive Order )o. *A@, so%e of the positions and offices, incl"ding the office of E>cise Ba> Services of which petitioner was the Assistant $o%%issioner, were a olished or otherwise decentrali1ed. $onse/"ently, the &resident released the list of appointed Assistant $o%%issioners of the #-R. Apparently, petitioner was not incl"ded.

agencies are here y directed to identify their respective activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of p" lic services and which %ay e scaled down, phased o"t or a olished, s" 6ect to civil r"les and reg"lations. >>>. Act"al scaling down, phasing o"t or a olition of the activities shall e effective p"rs"ant to $irc"lars or Orders iss"ed for the p"rpose y the Office of the &resident.: ;italics o"rs<

Bhe contention of petitioner that the two provisions are riders deserves scant consideration. 5ell settled is the r"le that every law has in its favor the pres"%ption of constit"tionality.F7G .nless and "ntil a specific provision of the law is declared invalid and "nconstit"tional, the sa%e is valid and inding for all intents and p"rposes.

On the aspect of proced"ral d"e process, s"ffice it to say that petitioner was given every chance to present his side. Bhe r"le is well settled that the essence of d"e process in ad%inistrative proceedings is that a party e afforded a reasona le opport"nity to e heard and to s" %it any evidence he %ay have in s"pport of his defense.F0G Bhe records clearly show that on Octo er *, *++A petitioner s" %itted his letterDresponse dated Septe% er A(, *++A to the ad%inistrative charged filed against hi%. Aside fro% his letter, he also s" %itted vario"s doc"%ents attached as anne>es to his letter, all of which are evidences s"pporting his defense. &rior to this, he received a letter dated Septe% er *0, *++A fro% the -nvestigation $o%%ittee re/"iring hi% to e>plain his side concerning the charge. -t cannot therefore e arg"ed that petitioner was denied of d"e process.

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

Said provision clearly %entions the acts of :scaling down, phasing o"t and a olition: of offices only and does not cover the creation of offices or transfer of f"nctions. )evertheless, the act of creating and decentrali1ing is incl"ded in the s" se/"ent provision of Section '@, which provides that:

Another legal asis of E.O. )o. *A@ is Section @(, #oo3 --- of E.O. )o. @+@ which states:

5e do not agree.

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

:Sec. '@, .na"thori1ed Organi1ational $harges. DD .nless otherwise created y law or directed y the &resident of the &hilippines, no organi1ational "nit or changes in 3ey positions in any depart%ent or agency shall e a"thori1ed in their respective organi1ation str"ct"res and e f"nded fro% appropriations y this Act.: ;italics o"rs<

:Sec.@(. Resid"al &owers. DD .nless $ongress provides otherwise, the &resident shall e>ercise s"ch other powers and f"nctions vested in the &resident which are provided for "nder the laws and which are not specifically en"%erated a ove or which are not delegated y the &resident in accordance with law.: ;italics o"rs<

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

:Sec. =7. Scaling !own and &hase O"t of Activities of Agencies 5ithin the E>ec"tive #ranch. DD Bhe heads of depart%ents, "rea"s and offices and

Bhe foregoing provision evidently shows that the &resident is a"thori1ed to effect organi1ational changes incl"ding the creation of offices in the depart%ent or agency concerned.

Bhis provision spea3s of s"ch other powers vested in the &resident "nder the law. 5hat law then which gives hi% the power to reorgani1eO -t is &residential !ecree )o. *00@F+G which a%ended &residential !ecree )o. *=*'. Bhese decrees e>pressly grant the &resident of the &hilippines the contin"ing a"thority to reorgani1e the national govern%ent, which incl"des the power to gro"p, consolidate "rea"s and agencies, to a olish offices, to transfer f"nctions, to create and classify f"nctions, services and activities and to standardi1e salaries and %aterials. Bhe validity of these two

decrees are "n/"estiona le. Bhe *+70 $onstit"tion clearly provides that :all laws, decrees, e>ec"tive orders, procla%ations, letters of instr"ctions and other e>ec"tive iss"ances not inconsistent with this $onstit"tion shall re%ain operative "ntil a%ended, repealed or revo3ed.:F*(G So far, there is yet no law a%ending or repealing said decrees. Significantly, the $onstit"tion itself recogni1es f"t"re reorgani1ations in the govern%ent as what is revealed in Section *' of Article EV---, th"s:

&resident to reorgani1e shall have ninety days fro% the approval of this act within which to i%ple%ent their respective reorgani1ation plans in accordance with the provisions of this Act.: ;italics o"rs<

:Sec. *'. $areer civil service e%ployees separated fro% service not for ca"se "t as a res"lt of the >>> reorgani1ation following the ratification of this $onstit"tion shall e entitled to appropriate separation pay >>>.:

E>ec"tive Order )o. *@0 was part of the *+70 reorgani1ation conte%plated "nder said provision. O vio"sly, it had eco%e stale y virt"e of the e>piration of the ninety day deadline period. -t can not th"s e "sed as a proper asis for the reorgani1ation of the #-R. )evertheless, as shown earlier, there are other legal ases to s"stain the a"thority of the &resident to iss"e the /"estioned E.O. )o. *A@.

to defeat sec"rity of ten"re, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid a olition ta3es place and whatever a olition is done is void a initio. Bhere is an invalid a olition as where there is %erely a change of no%enclat"re of positions or where clai%s of econo%y are elied y the e>istence of a%ple f"nds.:F**G

< 5here an office is a olished and another perfor%ing s" stantially the sa%e f"nctions is createdH

c< 5here inc"% ents are replaced y those less /"alified in ter%s of stat"s of appoint%ent, perfor%ance and %eritH

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

d< 5here there is a reclassification of offices in the depart%ent or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perfor% s" stantially the sa%e f"nctions as the original officesH

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

5hile the &resident?s power to reorgani1e can not e denied, this does not %ean however that the reorgani1ation itself is properly %ade in accordance with law. 5ellDsettled is the r"le that reorgani1ation is regarded as valid provided it is p"rs"ed in good faith. Bh"s, in !ario vs. 2ison, this co"rt has had the occasion to clarify that:

Section ** provides inter alia:

:>>>

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

:As a general r"le, a reorgani1ation is carried o"t in Lgood faithI if it is for the p"rpose of econo%y or to %a3e "rea"cracy %ore efficient. -n that event no dis%issal or separation act"ally occ"rs eca"se the position itself ceases to e>ist. And in that case the sec"rity of ten"re wo"ld not e a $hinese 5all. #e that as it %ay, if the a olition which is nothing else "t a separation or re%oval, is done for political reasons or p"rposely

Sec. @. )o officer or e%ployee in the career service shall e re%oved e>cept for a valid ca"se and after d"e notice and hearing. A valid ca"se for re%oval e>ist when, p"rs"ant to a ona fide reorgani1ation, a position has een a olished or rendered red"ndant or there is a need to %erge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to %eet the e>igencies of the service, or other lawf"l ca"ses allowed y the $ivil Service Law. Bhe e>istence of any or so%e of the following circ"%stances %ay e considered as evidence of ad faith in the re%ovals %ade as a res"lt of the reorgani1ation, giving rise to a clai% for reinstate%ent or reappoint%ent y an aggrieved party:

e< 5here the re%oval violates the order of separation provided in Section A hereof.:

A reading of so%e of the provisions of the /"estioned E.O. )o. *A@ clearly leads "s to an inescapa le concl"sion that there are circ"%stances considered as evidences of ad faith in the reorgani1ation of the #-R.

Section *.*.@ of said e>ec"tive order provides that:

a< 5here there is a significant increase in the n"% er of positions in the new staffing pattern of the depart%ent or agency concernedH

:*.*.@ Bhe -ntelligence and -nvestigation Office and the -nspection Service are a olished. An -ntelligence and -nvestigation Service is here y created to a sor the sa%e f"nctions of the

a olished office and service. >>>: ;italics o"rs<

Bhis provision is a clear ill"stration of the circ"%stance %entioned in Section @ ; < of R.A. )o. '',' that an office is a olished and another one perfor%ing s" stantially the sa%e f"nction is created.

Another circ"%stance is the creation of services and divisions in the #-R res"lting to a significant increase in the n"% er of positions in the said "rea" as conte%plated in paragraph ;a< of section @ of R.A. )o. '','. .nder Section *.A of E.O. )o. *A@, the -nfor%ation Syste%s Gro"p has two newly created Syste%s Services. Aside fro% this, si> new divisions are also created. .nder Section *.@.*, three %ore divisions of the Assess%ent Service are for%ed. 5ith this newly created offices, there is no do" t that a significant increase of positions will correspondingly follow.

9ence, he sho"ld have given preference for appoint%ent in the position of Assistant $o%%issioner. As clai%ed y petitioner, Antonio &angilinan who was one of those appointed as Assistant $o%%issioner, :is an o"tsider of sorts to the "rea", not having een an inc"% ent officer of the "rea" at the ti%e of the reorgani1ation.: 5e sho"ld not lose sight of the second paragraph of Section = of R.A. )o. '',' which e>plicitly states that no new e%ployees shall e ta3en in "ntil all per%anent officers shall have een appointed for per%anent position.

G.R. No. L-12536 27, 1958

Se3!e,8e

the $ity 2ayor, in the sa%e capacity as $ler3DStenographer, "t with per%anent stat"s, since then she re%ained in service contin"o"sly, receiving repeated pro%otions and increases in salary.

*)N*E+*I)N G. =RI)NES, "cco,3"n&e0 8# 5e 5u-8"n0 DEM)*RI() R. =RI)NES, "n0 %A'S(IN) ). R)SAGARAN, 3e!&!&one --"33e>>ee-, 2-. SERGI) )SME?A, JR., M"#o o$ *e8u *&!#, E(*., E( AL., e-3on0en!-"33e>>"n!-.

&etitioner 8a"stino O. Rosagaran, on the other hand, is a second grade civil service eligi le. 9e was e%ployed in the Office of the $ity 2ayor of $e " since J"ly, *+=(, and pro%oted to Ad%inistrative Officer. -n *+,,, he was p" licly declared and ad6"dged :2odel E%ployee:. ;Anne> :G:, records, p. @@<

8"rther%ore, it is perceiva le that the nonDreappoint%ent of the petitioner as Assistant $o%%issioner violates Section = of R.A. )o. '','. .nder said provision, officers holding per%anent appoint%ents are given preference for appoint%ent to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern co%para le to their for%er position or in case there are not eno"gh co%para le positions to positions ne>t lower in ran3. -t is "ndenia le that petitioner is a career e>ec"tive officer who is holding a per%anent position.

-) V-E5 O8 B9E 8OREGO-)G, the petition is granted, and petitioner is here y reinstated to his position as Assistant $o%%issioner witho"t loss of seniority rights and shall e entitled to f"ll ac3wages fro% the ti%e of his separation fro% service "ntil act"al reinstate%ent "nless, in the %eanwhile, he wo"ld have reached the co%p"lsory retire%ent age of si>tyDfive years in which case, he shall e dee%ed to have retired at s"ch age and entitled thereafter to the corresponding retire%ent enefits.

*&!# %&-c"> "n0 :u& &co 0e> M" "33e>>"n!-. A>8&no, A>8&no "33e>>ee-. "n0 +"c@u&"o

$o

$o

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

SO OR!ERE!.

Bhis is an action for %anda%"s with da%ages, to declare the a olition of petitioners? positions void and to order the respondent $ity 2ayor to reinstate the% to their for%er positions.

On Jan"ary ,, *+,', the 2"nicipal #oard of the $ity of $e ", acting "pon the re/"est of the respondent $ity 2ayor e% odied in his letter, dated Jan"ary =, *+,', passed Resol"tion )o. @*, series of *+,', creating A, positions in the $ity 2ayor?s office, and appropriating therefor the necessary a%o"nt for salaries for si> %onths, the a%o"nts of &@7,((( for office e/"ip%ent, &@,((( for office s"pplies and an additional a%o"nt of &*(,((( for the $ity 2ayor?s discretionary f"nd.

Bhe new positions were: &rivate Secretary at &@,, a %onth

&etitioner $oncepcion G. #riones is a first grade civil service eligi le. On 2arch =, *+A0, he was appointed as $ler3D Stenographer in the Office of the $ity Breas"rer of $e " and on A"g"st ,, *+A0, she was transferred to the Office of

&*,,A(.(( Assistant &rivate Secretary at &@*, a %onth

&*,@+(.(( Bwo ;@< $onfidentialDAssistants at &@(( each per %onth

Bwo Assistant &" lic Relations Officers at &*,( each per %onth &,,(=(.(( &*,7((.(( Botal &A=,(,(.((

reinstate%ent, ac3 salaries, da%ages and attorney?s fees.

%oral

&@,=((.(( Bwo ;@< Liaison Officers at &@,( each per %onth &A,(((.(( One !river at &*0, per %onth &*,(,(.(( One !river at &*@( per %onth &0@(.(( One Janitor at &*@( per %onth

One Stenographer at &*,( per %onth &+((.(( One La orer at &*@( per %onth &0@(.(( One Janitor at &*@( per %onth &0@(.(( $hief, $o%plaints and -nvestigation !ivision at &A(( per %onth &*,7((.(( On 8e r"ary *=, *+,', the 2"nicipal #oard in its Resol"tion )o. *70, series of *+,', approved Ordinance )o. *+@, a olishing *, positions in the $ity 2ayor?s office and *0 positions in the Office of the 2"nicipal #oard, or a total of A@ positions in oth offices. A%ong the positions a olished in the Office of the $ity 2ayor were those occ"pied y petitioners. ;E>h. :9:, pp. @AD@=<. Bhe Ordinance was approved y the $ity 2ayor on 8e r"ary @(, *+,'. &"rs"ant to said Ordinance )o. *+@, the $ity 2ayor, on 8e r"ary @A, *+,', wrote separate letters to petitioners notifying the% of the a olition of their positions and advising the% of the ter%ination of their services :effective at the close of "siness ho"rs on 2arch *,, *+,'.: ;E>hs. - and -D*, Records, pp. @,D@'<. -n reply thereto, petitioners #riones and Rosagaran, respectively, wrote in 2arch *+,', separate letters to the respondent $ity 2ayor, ;*< ac3nowledging receipt his letters of separation, ;@< protesting the a olition of their positions, and ;A< infor%ing hi% that they will not relin/"ish their positions :"ntil otherwise deter%ined y higher co%petent a"thorities or co"rts.: ;E>hs. J and JD*, Records, pp. @0D@7<. As the respondent $ity 2ayor persisted in ter%inating their services, added to the fact that the respondents $ity Breas"rer and $ity A"ditor ref"sed to pay their salaries after 2arch *', *+,', petitioners filed the instant petition for

Bhe $o"rt of 8irst -nstance of $e " decided in favor of the petitioners and declared the a olition of their offices n"ll and void for lac3 of approval of the !epart%ent 9ead, as re/"ired y the $irc"lar of April A, *+'= and y E>ec"tive Order )o. ,(', series of *+A=H conse/"ently, it rendered 6"dg%ent against defendants ordering the% to reinstate the two petitioners to their for%er positions and pay their ac3 salaries as well as the cost of the s"it. 8ro% this 6"dg%ent the respondents appealed.

&0@(.(( Bwo ;@< La orers at &*@( each per %onth

Bwo ;@< Legal Assistants at &@(( each per %onth &@,=((.((

&*,==(.(( One La orer at &*@( per %onth Bwo ;@< Stenographers at &*,( each per %onth &0@(.(( &*,7((.(( One Receptionist at &*A( per %onth &0@(.(( &07(.(( &" lic Relations Officer at &A(( per %onth &@,0((.(( &*,7((.(( Seven ;0< -nfor%ers at &*@( each per %onth Bhree ;A< -nfor%ers at &*,( each per %onth One Janitor at &*@( per %onth

Appellants contend that the provisions of E>ec"tive Order )o. ,(', Series of *+A=, as reiterated in the &rovincial $irc"lar of April A, *+,=, re/"iring previo"s approval of the !epart%ent 9ead concerned efore a olition of positions y total legislative odies can ta3e effect, is no longer operative since the $o%%onwealth, in view of the fact that the $onstit"tion vests in the &resident of the &hilippines ;Art. V--, section *( ;*< only general s"pervision, and not control, over local govern%ents. Bhis contention is s"stained y the recent doctrines of this $o"rt, partic"larly Rodrig"e1 vs. 2ontinola ;+= &hil., +'=H ,( Off. Ga1., F*(G =7@(< and !o%ing"e1 vs. &asc"al ;*(* &hil., A*<.

Bhe case of &"l"tan vs. !i1on, ++ &hil., *'7H ,@ Off. Ga1., A(=0, invo3ed y the

trial co"rt, is of no application since that case referred to police officers, whose re%oval or s"spension is governed y entirely different laws ;E>ec"tive Order )o. *0,, Series *+A7, and Rep" lic Act ,,0<. 2oreover, in the &"l"tan case, the validity and constit"tionality of the &rovincial $irc"lar and of E>ec"tive Order )o. ,(', s"pra, was not in iss"e.

o"r $onstit"tion dictates that civil service eligi les, li3e petitioners herein who have rendered long and honora le service, sho"ld not e sacrificed in favor of nonD eligi les given positions of recent creation, nor sho"ld they e left at the %ercy of political changes. -n &"l"tan vs. !i1on ;s"pra< we said:

*. Bhis $o"rt has always "pheld these sal"tary principles. -n o"r recent decision in Gacho, et al., vs. Os%eQa, etc. et al., += &hil., @(7, we r"led that while a olition of the office does not i%ply re%oval of the inc"% ent, the r"le is tr"e only where the a olition is %ade in good faithH that the right to a olish can not e "sed to discharge e%ployees in violation of the civil service law nor can it e e>ercised for personal or political reasons. Bhat r"ling is concl"sive on the case now efore "s.

Bhis petition for prohi ition see3s to prevent respondents fro% i%ple%enting and enforcing Rep" lic Act ;RA< +AA,

)evertheless, in o"r opinion, the decision appealed fro% sho"ld e s"stained, "t on different gro"nds. O"r review of the evidence on record convinced "s that the reasons given for the a olition of the positions of the appellees ;alleged to e econo%y and efficiency< are "ntr"e, and constit"te a %ere s" terf"ge for the re%oval witho"t ca"se of the said appellees, in violation of the sec"rity of $ivil Service ten"res as provided y the $onstit"tion.

-t is evident that the %ayor co"ld not legally re%ove the petitioner witho"t ca"se, for eing a %e% er of the $ivil Service, his ten"re of office is protected y Section =, Article E-- of the $onstit"tion, which says:

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

$onsidering that the appellees have served in the office of the 2ayor of $e ", since $o%%onwealth days, efore the warH that their efficiency and %erit has een attested y repeated and constant pro%otions and increases in salaryH that petitioner Rosagaran was even proclai%ed :2odel E%ployee: as recently as *+,,H and that 6"st a short ti%e efore the a olition of their positions, the respondents had created for the sa%e office of the $ity 2ayor no less than A, new positions calling for an o"tlay of &'7,*(( per ann"%, al%ost &',((( a %onth, the e>c"se of pro%oting efficiency and econo%y is %ost transparent and "ni%pressive. A decent respect for the $ivil Service provisions of

Bhe $o%%ittee on $ivil Service of the $onstit"tional $onvention, in reco%%ending said provision said:.

Appellants ;respondents elow< aver that the petition %anda%"s sho"ld have een dis%issed eca"se the appellees have not e>ha"sted the availa le ad%inistrative re%edies. Bhe Stip"lation of 8acts, however, e>pressly ad%itted paragraph *7 of the petition, alleging :that all ad%inistrative re%edies have een e>ha"sted y the petitioners for the speedy and a%ple protection of their rights.: ;Records, p. ,A<. Bhe assign%ent of error is not only gro"ndless "t i%proper.

;Attrition Actof @((,<.RA +AA, was enacted to opti%i1e the reven"eD generation capa ility and collection of the #"rea" of -nternal Reven"e ;#-R< and the#"rea" of $"sto%s ;#O$<. Bhe law intends to enco"rage #-R and #O$ officials and e%ployees to e>ceed their reven"e targets yproviding a syste% of rewards and sanctions thro"gh the creation of a Rewards and -ncentives 8"nd ;8"nd< and a Reven"e&erfor%ance Eval"ation #oard ;#oard<. -t covers all officials and e%ployees of the #-R and the #O$ with at least si> %onths of service, regardless of e%ploy%ent stat"s@.

&etitioners, invo3ing their right as ta>payers filed this petition challenging the constit"tionality of RA +AA,, a ta> refor%legislation. Bhey contend that, y esta lishing a syste% of rewards and incentives, the law :transfor%FsG the officials ande%ployees of the #-R and the #O$ into %ercenaries and o"nty h"nters: as they will do their est only in consideration of s"chrewards. &etitioners also assail the creation of a congressional oversight co%%ittee on the gro"nd that it violates the doctrineof separation of powers, for it per%its legislative participation in the i%ple%entation and enforce%ent of the law.

. . . . Bhe %erit syste% will e ineffective if no safeg"ards are placed aro"nd the separation and re%oval of the p" lic e%ployees. Bhe $o%%ittees? report re/"ires that re%oval shall e %ade only for ca"se? and in the %anner provided y law. Bhis %eans that there sho"ld e ona fide reasons and action %ay e ta3en only after the e%ployee shall have een given a fair hearing. Bhis affords to p" lic e%ployees reasona le sec"rity of ten"re. ;Ar"ego, the 8ra%ing of the &hilippine $onstit"tion, *+=+ Ed., p. ,'0<

Bhe decision appealed fro% is affir%ed, with costs against respondents in oth instances. So ordered.

A=A.ADA Gu o +" !# L&-! 2 +u &-&,"G.R. No. 166715, Au/u-! 17, 2008 8A$BS:

-SS.E: 5O) the 6oint congressional co%%ittee is valid and constit"tional 9EL!: )o. -t is "nconstit"tional.-n the case of 2acalintal, in the disc"ssion of J. &"no, the power of oversight e% races all activities "nderta3en y $ongress to enhanceits "nderstanding of and infl"ence over the i%ple%entation of legislation it has enacted. $learly, oversight concerns postDenact%ent %eas"res "nderta3en y $ongress: ;a< to %onitor "rea"cratic co%pliance with progra% o 6ectives, ; < to deter%ine whether agenciesare properly ad%inistered, ;c< to eli%inate e>ec"tive waste and dishonesty, ;d< to prevent e>ec"tive "s"rpation of legislative a"thority,and ;d< to assess e>ec"tive confor%ity with the congressional perception of p" lic interest. Bhe power of oversight has een held to eintrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the chec3s and alances inherent in a de%ocratic syste% of govern%ent5ith this ac3drop, it is clear that congressional oversight is not "nconstit"tional per se , %eaning, it neither necessarily constit"tes anencroach%ent on the e>ec"tive power to i%ple%ent laws nor

"nder%ines the constit"tional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral tothe chec3s and alances inherent in a de%ocratic syste% of govern%ent. -t %ay in fact even enhance the separation of powers as itprevents the overD acc"%"lation of power in the e>ec"tive ranch. 9owever, to forestall the danger of congressional encroach%ent : eyond the legislative sphere,: the $onstit"tion i%poses two asicand related constraints on $ongress . -t %ay not vest itself, any of its co%%ittees or its %e% ers with either e>ec"tive or 6"dicial power.

of the i%ple%entation of laws p"rs"ant to the power of $ongress to cond"ct in/"iries inaid of legislation. Any action or step eyond that will "nder%ine the separation of powers g"aranteed y the $onstit"tion. Legislative vetoes fall in thisclass. Legislative veto is a stat"tory provision re/"iring the &resident or an ad%inistrative agency to present the proposed i%ple%enting r"les andreg"lations of a law to $ongress which, y itself or thro"gh a co%%ittee for%ed y it, retains a :right: or :power: to approve or disapproves"ch reg"lations efore they ta3e effect. As s"ch, a legislative veto in the for% of a congressional oversight co%%ittee is in the for% of aninwardDt"rning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash ;other than thro"gh scr"tiny and investigation< to an agency to which$ongress has y law initially delegated road powers. -t radically changes the design or str"ct"re of the $onstit"tion?s diagra% of power asit entr"sts to $ongress a direct role in enforcing, applying or i%ple%enting its own laws. G.R. )o. +,==, A"g"st ', *++*

B9E 9O). &ER8E$BO LAG.-O JR., in his capacity as &residing J"dge of the Regional Brial $o"rt of 2anila, #ranch *7, 9O). -S-!RO $AR-RO, in his capacity as Secretary of Ed"cation, $"lt"re and Sports and the 9O). ERL-)!A LOLARGA in her capacity as 2anila $ity Schools S"perintendent, respondentsDappellees.

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

And, when it e>ercises its legislative power, it %"st follow the :single, finely wro"ght and e>ha"stively considered, proced"res: specified"nder the $onstit"tion incl"ding the proced"re for enact%ent of laws and present%ent.Bh"s, any postDenact%ent congressional %eas"re s"ch as this sho"ld e li%ited to scr"tiny and investigation. -n partic"lar, congressionaloversight %"st e confined to the following:;*< scr"tiny ased pri%arily on $ongress? power of appropriation and the "dget hearings cond"cted in connection withit, its power to as3 heads of depart%ents to appear efore and e heard y either of its 9o"ses on any %atterpertaining to their depart%ents and its power of confir%ation

ALLIAN*E )% *)N*ERNED (EA*HERS AA*(B, ENRI:'E D. ()RRES, R)DRIG) G. NA(I4IDAD, %RAN*IS*) A. NERE*INA, E4A 4. %ERIA, L'*IA R. *ARRAS*), LE) R. RAM=)<)NG, ZENEIDA +EREZ, MARIA A*EJ) AND )(HER SIMILARL< SI('A(ED +'=LI* S*H))L (EA*HERS ()) N'MER)'S () =E IM+LEADED, 3e!&!&one -, 2-. H)N. ISIDR) *ARI?) &n 5&- c"3"c&!# "- Sec e!" # o$ E0uc"!&on, *u>!u e "n0 S3o !- "n0 H)N. G'ILLERM) *ARAG'E, &n 5&c"3"c&!# "Sec e!" # o$ =u0/e! "n0 M"n"/e,en!, e-3on0en!-.

2A)-LA &.#L-$ S$9OOL BEA$9ERS ASSO$-AB-O), 8-!EL 8A#A#-ER 2ERL-) A)O).EVO, 2-)!A GALA)G and other teacherD%e% ers so n"%ero"s si%ilarly sit"ated, petitionersDappellants, vs.

and;@< investigation and %onitoring

8ree Legal Assistance Gro"p, 2ove%ent of Attorneys for #rotherhood -ntegrity S

)ationalis% and .nion of Lawyers and Advocates for petitioners in G.R. )o. +,,+(.

Gregorio 8a ros for petitioners in G.R. )o. +,==,.

)ARVASA, J.:p

Bhe series of events that to"ched off these cases started with the soDcalled :%ass action: "nderta3en y so%e 7(( p" lic school teachers, a%ong the% %e% ers of the petitioning associations in oth cases, on Septe% er *0, *++( to :dra%ati1e and highlight: * the teachers? plight res"lting fro% the alleged fail"re of the p" lic a"thorities to act "pon grievances that had ti%e and again een ro"ght to the latter?s attention.

Bhe petition in G.R. )o. +,,+( alleges in great detail the character and origins of those grievances as perceived y the petitioners, and the atte%pts to negotiate their correctionH @ these are %ore riefly, "t /"ite ade/"ately and with no sacrifice of relevant content, set forth in the petition in G.R. )o. +,==,*, portions of which are /"oted here"nder witho"t necessarily affir%ing their o 6ective tr"th or correctness:

A. Bogether with other teachers e% racing the Beachers and E%ployees $ons"ltative $o"ncil ;BE$$< and the Alliance of $oncerned Beachers, the petitioners, in accordance with their $onstit"tion and #yDLaws, resolved to engage in %ass concerted actions, after peacef"l dialog"es with the heads of the !epart%ent of the #"dget and 2anage%ent, Senate and 9o"se of Representatives in p" lic hearings as well as after e>ha"sting all ad%inistrative re%edies, to press for, a%ong other things, the i%%ediate pay%ent of d"e chal3, clothing allowances, *Ath %onth pay for *+7+ arising fro% the i%ple%entation of the Salary Standardi1ation Law, the recall of !E$S Order A+ s. *++( directing the oversi1ing of classes and overloading of teachers p"rs"ant to the costDc"tting %eas"res of the govern%ent, the hiring of =0,((( new teachers to ease the overload of e>isting teachers, the ret"rn of the additional *T real property ta>es collected y local govern%ent "nits to ed"cation p"rposes to e ad%inistered y the Local School #oards, and conse/"ent recall of !#2 $irc"lars )os. +(= and +(** and local "dget circ"lar )o. =0 consistent with RA ,==0 and the new $onstit"tion %andating that ed"cation shall en6oy the highest "dgetary priority in the national "dget, and other e/"ally i%portant de%andsH Bhe dialog"es and conferences initiated y the petitioners and other teacher organi1ations were as early as 2arch *=, *+7+, 2arch *=, *++(, April @A, *++(, 2ay @7, *++(, J"ne ,, *++(, Septe% er A, *++( and Septe% er *=, *++( with the $ivil Service $o%%ission, the Senate and 9o"se of Representatives, !epart%ent of #"dget and 2anage%ent

and the !epart%ent of Ed"cation, $"lt"re and Sports, "t all these did not res"lt in the granting of the de%ands of the petitioners, leaving the% with no other reco"rse "t to ta3e direct %ass action s"ch as the one they engaged in three wee3s ago.

=. On Septe% er *=, *++(, the petitioners and other teachers in other cities and %"nicipalities in 2etro 2anila, staged a protest rally at the !E$S pre%ises witho"t disr"pting classes as a last call for the govern%ent to negotiate the granting of de%ands. )o response was %ade y the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation, despite the de%onstration, so the petitioners egan the ongoing protest %ass actions on Septe% er, *0,*++(. ... A

participants in the %ass action to ret"rn to wor3 in @= ho"rs or face dis%issal, and a %e%orand"% directing the !E$S officials concerned to initiate dis%issal proceedings against those who did not co%ply and to hire their replace%ents. , Bhose directives notwithstanding, the %ass actions contin"ed into the wee3, with %ore teachers 6oining in the days that followed. -n its iss"e of Septe% er *+, *++(, the newspaper 2anila Standard reported that the day previo"s, the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation had relieved @+@ teachers who did not ret"rn to their classes. Bhe ne>t day, however, another daily, )ewsday, reported that the Secretary had revo3ed its dis%issal order and instead placed ,' of the @+@ teachers "nder preventive s"spension, despite which the protesters? n"% ers had swelled to =,(((. '

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 did not cond"ct their classes on that dayH instead, as alleged in the petition in G.R. )o. +,,+(, = they converged at the Liwasang #onifacio in the %orning whence they proceeded to the )ational Office of the !epart%ent of Ed"cation, $"lt"re and Sport ;!E$S< for a wholeDday asse% ly. At a o"t *:(( o?cloc3 p.%., three representatives of the gro"p were allowed to see the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation who : r"shed aside their grievances,: warned the% that they wo"ld lose their 6o s for going on illegal and "na"thori1ed %ass leave. .pon leaving said respondent?s presence, they were handed an order directing all

On the record, what did happen was that, ased on reports s" %itted y the principals of the vario"s p" lic schools in 2etro 2anila, the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation had filed %ot" proprio ad%inistrative co%plaints against the teachers who had ta3en part in the %ass actions and defied the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order on assorted charges li3e grave %iscond"ct, gross neglect of d"ty, gross violation of the $ivil Service Law, a sence witho"t official leave, etc., and placed the% "nder +(Dday preventive s"spension. Bhe respondents were served copies of the charge sheets and given five ;,< days to s" %it answer or e>planation. Later, on Octo er 7, *++(, the respondent Secretary constit"ted an investigating co%%ittee of fo"r ;=< to deter%ine and ta3e the appropriate co"rse of action on the for%al charges

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

inding, and dis%issing the petition for lac3 of %erit. **

On Octo er **, *++(, the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation rendered the first of his now /"estioned decisions on the ad%inistrative co%plaints. -n $ase )o. !E$S +(D((@, he fo"nd twenty ;@(< respondent teachers g"ilty of the charges preferred against the% and dis%issed the% fro% office, effective i%%ediately. 7 -n the other investigations that followed and as of !ece% er A, *++(, ',7 teachers were dis%issed, =( were s"spended for one ;*< year, AA for nine ;+< %onths, and *@@ for si> ;'< %onthsH A+7 were e>onerated. +

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

Said pleas were denied y the $o"rt in its Resol"tion of !ece% er *7, *++(, *= and a %otion for reconsideration filed y the petitioners in G.R. )o. +,,+( was li3ewise denied.

G.R. )o. +,,+( is a parallel original proceeding for prohi ition, %anda%"s and certiorari gro"nded on the sa%e state of facts and instit"ted for s" stantially the sa%e p"rpose i.e., the invalidation of the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order of the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation and all orders of s"spension andUor dis%issal thereafter iss"ed y said respondent against the teachers who had ta3en part in the %ass actions of Septe% er *0, *++( and the days that followed.

Earlier, on Septe% er *+, *++(, the petitioners in G.R. )o. +,==, had filed with the Regional Brial $o"rt of 2anila #ranch *7, a petition *( for prohi ition, declaratory relief and preli%inary %andatory in6"nction to restrain the i%ple%entation of the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order of Septe% er *0, *++( and the s"spension or dis%issal of any teacher p"rs"ant thereto and to declare said order n"ll and void. -ss"ance e>Dparte of a te%porary restraining order was so"ght, "t seeing no co%pelling reason therefor, the Regional Brial $o"rt instead set the application for preli%inary in6"nction for hearing, and heard the sa%e, on Septe% er @=, *++(. Bhereafter and following the s" %ission of %e%orand"%s y the parties, said $o"rt rendered 6"dg%ent declaring the assailed ret"rnDtoDwor3 order valid and

#oth cases were ordered consolidated y Resol"tion iss"ed on Octo er @,, *++(, *@ and separate co%%ents were filed y the Solicitor General on ehalf of the p" lic respondents, in G.R. )o. +,==, on Octo er A*, *++(, and in G.R. )o. +,,+( on !ece% er ,, *++(. *A On )ove% er @(, *++( the parties were heard in oral arg"%ent on the petitioners? "nited pleas for a te%porary restraining orderU%andatory in6"nction to restore the stat"s /"o ante and en6oin the p" lic respondents fro% contin"ing with the iss"ance of s"spension orders and proceeding with the ad%inistrative cases against the teachers involved in the %ass actions.

-n two separate "t identicallyDworded %otions filed on their ehalf y Atty. 8roilan 2. #ac"ngan, *, the following persons, to wit: 8lorita !. G"a1on, Elisea G. La1o, Gon1ala G. Sioson, Esperan1a Valero, )enita &angilinan, Ra%on !avid, A"rora #osi, Encarnita !avid, Socorro Sentin, $risp"lo Santos, Rodrig"e1 #agana, Rodolfo !. #acsal, R" en #ersa%ina, Rodolfo Arroyo, -rene Gadil, Re ecca Roldan, Rosita Sa%son, &riscilla Avendia, Art"ro $a "hat, Rosalinda $aoili, Angelina $orp"1, &"risi%a Lena, Elsie So%era, !edaica J"say, Beresita &arto1a, Gloria Salvador, $atherine San Ag"stin, )estor Ag"irre, Loren1o Real, $elia Ron/"illo, Vicente $arran1a, Jessie Villan"eva, Polanda Al"ra, $lara Alvare1, !anilo Lla%as, Ladera &anita 2yrna, Sena, Venaida Ligon, !aisy S. $onti, !anilo $a alles, S"san 2aragat, Ro erto 2anlangit and Eli1a eth B. Ag"irre, see3 leave to withdraw as parties in G.R. )o. +,,+(. Bhese %ovants clai% that they are s"ch parties altho"gh not individ"ally so na%ed in the petition in said case, eing a%ong those referred to in its title as :other si%ilarly sit"ated p" lic school teachers too n"%ero"s to e i%pleaded,: who had een ad%inistratively charged, then preventively s"spended andUor dis%issed in the wa3e of the %ass actions of Septe% er *++(. Bhey assert that since this $o"rt is not a trier of facts, they have opted to appeal the /"estioned decisions or act"ations of the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation to the

$ivil Service $o%%ission where they elieve they will have :... all the opport"nity to introd"ce evidence on how ;Secretary< $ariQo violated their constit"tional rights to d"e process of law ... sec"rity of ten"re and ... peacea ly to asse% le and petition the govern%ent for redress of grievances ....:

An opposition to the first %otion was filed *' which, riefly, contended that, as this $o"rt had already fo"nd that the petitioners had gone on an "nlawf"l stri3e and that p" lic respondent $ariQo?s acts were pri%a facie lawf"l, the %otion was either an atte%pt at for"%D shopping or %eant to avoid the :inevita le o"tco%e: of iss"es already pending final deter%ination y the $o"rt.

Bhe $o"rt?s Resol"tion of !ece% er *7, *++(, s"pra, denying the petitioners? plea for restoration of the stat"s /"o ante and to restrainUen6oin f"rther s"spensions of, and the initiation or contin"ation of, ad%inistrative proceedings against the teachers involved, is ased on the following post"lates:

;*< the "ndenied indeed, the pleaded and ad%itted fact that a o"t 7(( teachers, a%ong the% the individ"al petitioners and other "nna%ed "t :si%ilarly sit"ated: %e% ers of the petitioning associations in oth cases, "na"thori1edly a sented the%selves fro% their classes on a reg"lar schoolday, Septe% er *0, *++(, in order

to participate in a :%ass action: to dra%ati1e their grievances concerning, in the %ain, the alleged fail"re of the p" lic a"thorities, either to i%ple%ent at all or to i%ple%ent in a 6"st and correct %anner, certain laws and %eas"res intended to enefit the% %ateriallyH

;@< the fact, too, that in the days that followed, %ore %ass actions for the sa%e p"rpose were "nderta3en, notwithstanding a ret"rnDtoDwor3 order iss"ed y the respondent Secretary of Ed"cationH %ore teachers 6oined the soD called :peacef"l asse% lies: on Septe% er *7, *++( and the n"% er rising to =,((( on Septe% er *+, *++(H *0

;,< that "pon the foregoing pre%ises, it was pri%a facie lawf"l and within his stat"tory a"thority for the respondent Secretary of Ed"cation to ta3e the actions co%plained of, to wit: iss"e a ret"rnDtoDwor3 order, prefer ad%inistrative charges against, and place "nder preventive s"spension, those who failed to co%ply with said order, and dis%iss fro% the service those who failed to answer or controvert the chargesH *+

process eing their :para%o"nt co%plaint: ... :central to their prayer for interloc"tory relief? @( co"ld as well e said of the %erits of their %ain ca"se as of their plea for a restraining order pendente lite or a preli%inary in6"nction.

A, *++(, s"pra, fro% which the following passages are /"oted:

;A< that fro% the pleaded and ad%itted facts, these :%ass actions: were to all intents and p"rposes a stri3eH they constit"ted a concerted and "na"thori1ed stoppage of, or a sence fro%, wor3 which it was the teachers? d"ty to perfor%, "nderta3en for essentially econo%ic reasonsH

Bhe $o"rt has not since een presented with any consideration of law or esta lished fact that wo"ld i%pair the validity of these post"lates or precl"de contin"ed reliance thereon for the p"rpose of resolving the present petitions on their %erits.

;=< that this co"rt had already definitively r"led that e%ployees in the p" lic ;civil< service, "nli3e those in the private sector, do not have the right to stri3e, altho"gh g"aranteed the right to selfD organi1ation, to petition $ongress for the etter%ent of e%ploy%ent ter%s and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate govern%ent agencies for the i%prove%ent of s"ch wor3ing conditions as are not fi>ed y lawH *7

Bhe "nderlying iss"e here is d"e processH not whether the petitioners have a right to stri3e, which it is clear they do not, however 6"stifia le their reasons, nor whether or not there was in fact s"ch a stri3e, it eing e/"ally evident fro% the pleadings that there was, and there eing no disp"te a o"t this. 5hat therefore, is ro"ght efore the $o"rt is the /"estion of whether or not any rights of the petitioners "nder the d"e process cla"se of the $onstit"tion as it applies to ad%inistrative proceedings were violated in the initiation, cond"ct, or disposition of the investigations co%plained of.

Bhere are, however, ins"pera le o stacles to the $o"rt?s ta3ing "p that iss"e and resolving it in these cases. Said iss"e is not ripe for ad6"dication y this $o"rt in the e>ercise of its review 6"risdictionH and this, for the o vio"s reason that it is one of fact. Bhe petitions and s" se/"ent pleadings of the petitioners allege facts and circ"%stances which, it is clai%ed, show denial of d"e process, citing as s"pposedly :representative sa%ples: @* a%ong others: ;a< that teachers were dis%issed on the sole asis of "nsworn reports of their principals and witho"t evidence of their alleged fail"re to o ey the ret"rnDtoDwor3 orderH ; < that the charge sheets failed to specify the partic"lar charges or offenses allegedly co%%ittedH ;c< that so%e teachers were not f"rnished sworn co%plaints, and others were s"spended witho"t any for%al chargesH ;d< that teachers who atte%pted to ret"rn within a reasona le ti%e after notice of the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order were not accepted ac3H and si%ilar allegations.

;'< &etitioners in G.R. )o. +,,=, and G.R. )o. +,,+( ad%it engaging in a stri3e ;referred y se%antic interplay as :concerted activity: or :%ass action:< directed against p" lic respondent $ariQo eginning Septe% er *0, *++(, 2&SBA &etition, pp. A, +H A$B &etition, pp. *,*'<.

Bo avoid the disr"ption of classes, p" lic respondent $ariQo, also on Septe% er *0, *++(, iss"ed a ?ret"rn to wor3 order? re%inding stri3ing wor3ers that in law, they cannot engage in stri3e and warning the% that dis%issal proceedings will e instit"ted against the% if they do not ret"rn to wor3 with @= ho"rs fro% their wal3o"t ;2&SBA &etition, p. =H A$B &etition, p. *,< and a %e%orand"% to !E$S officials instr"cting the% to notify the stri3ing teachers to ret"rn to wor3 within @= ho"rs fro% their wal3o"t and to initiate dis%issal proceedings against those who defy the ret"rn to wor3 order as well as to hire te%porary replace%ents, 2&SBA &etition, p. =H A$B &etition, pp. *,D*'<.

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

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

Bhe stri3ing teachers who did not heed the ret"rnDtoDwor3 order were ad%inistratively charged and preventively s"spended for ninety days for grave %iscond"ct, gross neglect of d"ty, ins" ordination, ref"sal to perfor% official d"ty, a sence witho"t leave eginning Septe% er *0, *++( and other

violations of $ivil Service Law, r"les and reg"lations. All of stri3ing teachers were served with the s"spension orders and the change sheets notifying the% of the charges and giving the% five ;,< days fro% receipt of the charge sheets within which to file their respective answers.

&etition, p. =D* A$B &etition, p. *', Anne>es > , to , AA <.

>>> >>> >>>

2oreover, another reason proferred was that the Regional Brial $o"rt ;RB$< of 2anila still had to act on the petition efore it. 9owever, the 2otion was filed A8BER the RB$ 2anila had already dis%issed the &etition.

5ith the filing of the ad%inistrative co%plaints and the receipt of the answers of so%e of the teachers involved, p" lic respondent $arino on Octo er 7, *++( iss"ed a 2e%orand"% for%ing an -nvestigation $o%%ittee co%posed of Atty, Reno $apinpin of !E$S Ad%inistrative Services as $hair%an !r. Al erto 2endo1a, representing the !ivision S"pervisors, Atty. Evangeline de $astro, representing the $ity S"perintendent of Schools of 2anila, and Atty. -saias 2eleto representing the )ational &&SBA Organi1ation, as %e% ers. $opy of the aforesaid 2e%orand"% is hereto attached as Anne> :-.:

... 2any stri3ing teachers received their preventive s"spension orders and the charge sheets fro% their respective principals when they visited their schools. 2any ref"sed to receive and sign receipt thereforH others tore "p the preventive s"spension orders and charge sheets in front of their principals. -nstead, they too3 the occasion to elittle and ins"lt the s" stit"te teachers who too3 over their classroo%s te%porarily.

)evertheless, answers to the ad%inistrative co%plaints started po"ring in at the !E$S, as prepared personally y the stri3ing teachers or y their lawyers.

to e heardH their cases had to e resolved on the asis of the records. )evertheless, the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce s"%%oned the principals concerned, who then testified "nder oath confir%ing their reports on the a sences of the stri3ing teachers. So%e clarificatory /"estions were as3ed of the% on the %anner of the service of the !E$S orders and the sit"ation o taining in their schools.

Bhe co%%ittee was a"thori1ed to %eet everyday, even as Special &rosec"tors fro% the !epart%ent of 6"stice on detail with the !E$S were designated to handle the prosec"tion d"ring the for%al hearings. ;- id.<

&etitioners in GR )o. +,,=,? and ?G.R. )o. +,,+(? ad%it having received the charge sheets and notices of preventive s"spension wherein they were given five days fro% receipt of the charges within which to file their answers ;2&SBA

Bhe stri3ing teachers were given a period of five days to file their Answers in line with Sec. 7, R"le --- of R"les on Ad%inistrative !isciplinary $ases in $S$ 2e%orand"% $irc"lar )o. =', s. *+7+. Bhe %otion for e>tension of ti%e to file Answer was denied y !E$S Bas3 8orce eca"se it was dilatory the alleged reason eing that Atty. 8a ros is handling @,((( cases of teachers. Bhe !E$S was constrained y Sec. A7;d< of &.!. 7(0 and Sec. 7 of the 2e%orand"% $irc"lar %entioned which %andate that ad%inistrative cases %"st e decided within A( days fro% the filing of the charges. Another reason was that %any ref"sed to receive the notice of charges. Also, to delay the resol"tion of the cases was to their disadvantage.

After initial assess%ents of the reports co%ing in fro% the principals of the schools concerned and the answers of the stri3ing teachers, the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce prepared on Octo er +, *++( and s" %itted to respondent Secretary $arino the G"idelines and $riteria as to the nat"re of the evidence to e assessed and the corresponding penalty to e i%posed against the stri3ing teachers, which was approved y respondent Secretary $arino on the sa%e day. A copy of the aforesaid G"idelines and $riteria is hereto attached as Anne> :@.: Bhereafter, the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce proceeded with its tas3 of investigating the cases against the stri3ing teachers.

8or those who answered the charge sheets, the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce set the ad%inistrative cases for hearing. 2any of the stri3ing teachers ref"sed to appear at the hearings "t preferred to s" %it their case on the asis of their answers.

Bhose who ref"sed to sign the !E$S ret"rnDtoDwor3 order, the preventive s"spension orders and the charge sheets, so%e even tearing "p the doc"%ents presented to the% y their principals were considered y the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce as having waived their right

5ith regard to those who attended the hearings, each of the a sent or stri3ing teachers was investigated and as3ed /"estions "nder oath on their answers and the reasons for their a sences andUor 6oining the teachers? stri3e. So%e teachers reiterated their answers to the charge sheets, either giving 6"stifia le reasons for their a sences on the days %entioned or %aintaining their st" orn stand that they have all the right to a sent the%selves fro% classes in the e>ercise of their constit"tional right to 6oin %ass action to de%and fro% the govern%ent what are s"pposedly d"e the%. Still the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce was not satisfied with their written answers and e>planation d"ring the hearings. Bhe principals of the stri3ing teachers were s"%%oned and they confir%ed "nder oath their reports of

a sences andUor on teachers 6oining the stri3e.

After having cond"cted f"lly their investigations, the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce s" %itted in series their investigation reports and reco%%endation for each category of stri3ing teachers to respondent Secretary $arino. Bhe investigation reports, together with their s"pporting doc"%ents, s" %itted y the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce indicated clearly the %anner and cond"ct of the ad%inistrative hearings, the nat"re and weight of the evidence add"ced, and the correspondingly penalty or e>oneration reco%%ended.

Bhis copio"s citation is %ade, not to s"ggest that the $o"rt finds what is stated therein to e tr"e and the contrary aver%ents of the petitions to e false, "t precisely to stress that the facts "pon which the /"estion of alleged denial of d"e process wo"ld t"rn are still in iss"e, actively controverted, hence not yet esta lished.

On the ases of the investigation reports and reco%%endations of the !E$S Special Bas3 8orce, and after eval"ating the reports and its doc"%ents attached, respondent Secretary $arino pro%"lgated the decisions either for e>oneration, s"spension or dis%issal. $opies of the !E$S decisions of e>oneration, s"spension or dis%issal were forwarded to the principals of the stri3ing teachers concerned. Bhose e>onerated were allowed to res"%e their d"ties and received their ac3 salaries. So%e of the teachers either s"spended or dis%issed have already received the copies of the decisions, either personally or thro"gh %ail.

-t is not for the $o"rt, which is not a trier of facts, as the petitioners who wo"ld now withdraw correctly p"t it, to %a3e the cr"cial deter%ination of what in tr"th transpired concerning the disp"ted incidents. Even if that were within its co%petence, it wo"ld e at est a %on"%ental tas3. At any rate, the petitioners cannotDas it see%s they have done l"%p together into what a%o"nts to a class action h"ndreds of individ"al cases, each with its own pec"liar set of facts, and e>pect a r"ling that wo"ld 6"stly and correctly resolve each and everyone of those cases "pon little %ore than general allegations, frontally disp"ted as already pointed o"t, of incidents s"pposedly :representative: of each case or gro"p of cases.

vindicate their rights therein, see those proceedings thro"gh to 6"dg%ent and if ad6"dged g"ilty, appeal to the $ivil Service $o%%issionH or if, pending said proceedings, i%%ediate reco"rse to 6"dicial a"thority was elieved necessary eca"se the respondent Secretary or those acting "nder hi% or on his instr"ctions were acting witho"t or in e>cess of 6"risdiction, or with grave a "se of discretion, to apply, not directly to the S"pre%e $o"rt, "t to the Regional Brial $o"rt, where there wo"ld e an opport"nity to prove the relevant facts warranting corrective relief.

SO OR!ERE!. 6G.R. No. 172801-802. Ju># 10, 20019

&artiesDlitigant are d"ty o"nd to o serve the proper order of reco"rse thro"gh the 6"dicial hierarchyH they yDpass the r"ngs of the 6"dicial ladder at the peril of their own ca"ses. @A Bhis $o"rt is a co"rt of last resort. -ts review 6"risdiction is li%ited to resolving /"estions of law where there is no disp"te of the facts or the facts have already een deter%ined y lower tri "nals, e>cept only in cri%inal actions where capital penalties have een i%posed.

='.L)D NG .ACANING EII=, *ESAR +)SADA, REMEDI)S G. +RIN*ESA, =ENJAMIN .H), =ENIGN) MANGA, L'L' MEND)ZA, 3e!&!&one -, 2-. H)N. E;E*'(I4E SE*RE(AR< R)NALD) =. ZAM)RA, H)N. SE*RE(AR< J)SE +ARD), DE+AR(MEN( )% %INAN*E, H)N. SE*RE(AR< =ENJAMIN DI).N), DE+AR(MEN( )% ='DGE( AND MANAGEMEN(, H)N. SE*RE(AR< AR(EMI) (':'ER), DE+AR(MEN( )% J'S(I*E, e-3on0en!-.

DE*ISI)N

SAND)4AL-G'(IERREZ, J.D

>>> >>> >>> @@

Bhis case ill"strates the error of precipitate reco"rse to the S"pre%e $o"rt, especially when n"%ero"s parties desparately sit"ated as far as the facts are concerned gather "nder the "% rella of a co%%on plea, and generali1ation of what sho"ld e alleged with partic"larity eco%es "navoida le. Bhe petitioners? o vio"s re%edy was )OB to halt the ad%inistrative proceedings "t, on the contrary, to ta3e part, assert and

59ERE8ORE, oth petitioners are !-S2-SSE!, witho"t pre6"dice to any appeals, if still ti%ely, that the individ"al petitioners %ay ta3e to the $ivil Service $o%%ission on the %atters co%plained of. Bhe %otions to withdraw, s"pra, are %erely )OBE!, this disposition rendering any e>press r"ling thereon "nnecessary. )o prono"nce%ent as to costs.

-n this petition for certiorari, prohi ition and %anda%"s, petitioners #"3lod )g 4awaning E--#, $esar &osada, Re%edios &rincesa, #en6a%in 4ho, #enigno 2anga and L"l" 2endo1a, for the%selves and in ehalf of others with who% they share a co%%on or general interest, see3 the n"llification of E>ec"tive Order )o. *+*F*G and E>ec"tive Order )o. @@AF@G on the gro"nd that they were iss"ed y the Office of the &resident with grave a "se of discretion and in violation of their constit"tional right to sec"rity of ten"re.

Bhe facts are "ndisp"ted:

On J"ne A(, *+70, for%er &resident $ora1on $. A/"ino, iss"ed E>ec"tive Order )o. *@0FAG esta lishing the Econo%ic -ntelligence and -nvestigation #"rea" ;E--#< as part of the str"ct"ral organi1ation of the 2inistry of 8inance.F=G Bhe E--# was designated to perfor% the following f"nctions:

;d< S"pervise, %onitor and coordinate all the intelligence and investigation operations of the operating #"rea"s and Offices "nder the 2inistryH

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

for having een iss"ed with grave a "se of discretion a%o"nting to lac3 or e>cess of 6"risdiction.

#. ;e< -nvestigate, hear and file, "pon clearance y the 2inister, antiDgraft and corr"ption cases against personnel of the 2inistry and its constit"ents "nitsH 2eanwhile, &resident Estrada iss"ed E>ec"tive Order )o. *+'F7G creating the &residential AntiDS%"ggling Bas3 8orce JAd"ana.KF+G

J;a< Receive, gather and eval"ate intelligence reports and infor%ation and evidence on the nat"re, %odes and e>tent of illegal activities affecting the national econo%y, s"ch as, "t not li%ited to, econo%ic sa otage, s%"ggling, ta> evasion, and dollarD salting, investigate the sa%e and aid in the prosec"tion of casesH

;f< &erfor% s"ch other appropriate f"nctions as %ay e assigned y the 2inister or his dep"ties.KF,G

Bhe a olition of the E--# is a hoa>. Si%ilarly, if E>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@A are considered to effect a reorgani1ation of the E--#, s"ch reorgani1ation was %ade in ad faith.

; < $oordinate with e>ternal agencies in %onitoring the financial and econo%ic activities of persons or entities, whether do%estic or foreign, which %ay adversely affect national financial interest with the goal of reg"lating, controlling or preventing said activitiesH

-n a desire to achieve har%ony of efforts and to prevent possi le conflicts a%ong agencies in the co"rse of their antiD s%"ggling operations, &resident A/"ino iss"ed 2e%orand"% Order )o. @@, on 2arch *0, *+7+, providing, a%ong others, that the E--# Jshall e the agency of pri%ary responsi ility for antiD s%"ggling operations in all land areas and inland waters and waterways o"tside the areas of sole 6"risdiction of the #"rea" of $"sto%s.KF'G

Bhen the day feared y the E--# e%ployees ca%e. On 2arch @+, @(((, &resident Estrada iss"ed E>ec"tive Order )o. @@AF*(G providing that all E--# personnel occ"pying positions specified therein shall e dee%ed separated fro% the service effective April A(, @(((, p"rs"ant to a ona fide reorgani1ation res"lting to a olition, red"ndancy, %erger, division, or consolidation of positions.F**G

$.

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

;c< &rovide all intelligence "nits of operating #"rea"s or Offices "nder the 2inistry with the general fra%ewor3 and g"idelines in the cond"ct of intelligence and investigating wor3sH

Eleven years after, or on Jan"ary 0, @(((, &resident Joseph Estrada iss"ed E>ec"tive Order )o. *+* entitled J!eactivation of the Econo%ic -ntelligence and -nvestigation #"rea".KF0G 2otivated y the fact that Jthe designated f"nctions of the E--# are also eing perfor%ed y the other e>isting agencies of the govern%entK and that Jthere is a need to constantly %onitor the overlapping of f"nctionsK a%ong

Agoni1ing over the loss of their e%ploy%ent, petitioners now co%e efore this $o"rt invo3ing o"r power of 6"dicial review of E>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@A. Bhey anchor their petition on the following arg"%ents:

JA

&etitioners contend that the iss"ance of the aforeD%entioned e>ec"tive orders is: ;a< a violation of their right to sec"rity of ten"reH ; < tainted with ad faith as they were not act"ally intended to %a3e the "rea"cracy %ore efficient "t to give way to Bas3 8orce JAd"ana,K the f"nctions of which are essentially and s" stantially the sa%e as that of E--#H and ;c< a "s"rpation of the power of $ongress to decide whether or not to a olish the E--#.

E>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@A sho"ld e ann"lled as they are "nconstit"tional for eing violative of Section @;A<, Article -ED# of the &hilippine $onstit"tion andUor

Arg"ing in ehalf of respondents, the Solicitor General %aintains that: ;a< the &resident en6oys the totality of the e>ec"tive power provided "nder Sections

* and 0, Article V-- of the $onstit"tion, th"s, he has the a"thority to iss"e E>ec"tive Order )os. *+* and @@AH ; < the said e>ec"tive orders were iss"ed in the interest of national econo%y, to avoid d"plicity of wor3 and to strea%line the f"nctions of the "rea"cracyH and ;c< the E--# was not Ja olished,K it was only Jdeactivated.K

constit"te Ja olitionK of an officeO 9owever, after co%ing to ter%s with the prevailing law and 6"rispr"dence, we are certain that the "lti%ate /"eries sho"ld e N a< !oes the &resident have the a"thority to reorgani1e the e>ec"tive depart%entO and, < 9ow sho"ld the reorgani1ation e carried o"tO

the office was created y the $onstit"tion itself, it %ay e a olished y the sa%e legislat"re that ro"ght it into e>istence.F*7G

Bhe petition is ereft of %erit.

!espite the presence of so%e proced"ral flaws in the instant petition, s"ch as, petitionersI disregard of the hierarchy of co"rts and the nonDe>ha"stion of ad%inistrative re%edies, we dee% it necessary to address the iss"es. -t is in the interest of the State that /"estions relating to the stat"s and e>istence of a p" lic office e settled witho"t delay. 5e are not witho"t precedent. -n !ario v. 2ison,F*@G we li erally decreed:

S"rely, there e>ists a distinction etween the words JdeactivateK and Ja olish.K Bo JdeactivateK %eans to render inactive or ineffective or to rea3 "p y discharging or reassigning personnel,F*AG while to Ja olishK %eans to do away with, to ann"l, a rogate or destroy co%pletely. F*=G -n essence, a olition denotes an intention to do away with the office wholly and per%anently.F*,G Bh"s, while in a olition, the office ceases to e>ist, the sa%e is not tr"e in deactivation where the office contin"es to e>ist, al eit re%aining dor%ant or inoperative. #e that as it %ay, deactivation and a olition are oth reorgani1ation %eas"res.

Bhe e>ception, however, is that as far as "rea"s, agencies or offices in the e>ec"tive depart%ent are concerned, the &residentIs power of control %ay 6"stify hi% to inactivate the f"nctions of a partic"lar office,F*+G or certain laws %ay grant hi% the road a"thority to carry o"t reorgani1ation %eas"res.F@(G Bhe case in point is Larin v. E>ec"tive Secretary.F@*G -n this case, it was arg"ed that there is no law which e%powers the &resident to reorgani1e the #-R. -n decreeing otherwise, this $o"rt s"stained the following legal asis, th"s:

depart%ents, "rea"s and offices and agencies are here y directed to identify their respective activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of p" lic services and which %ay e scaled down, phased o"t or a olished, s" 6ect to civil service r"les and reg"lations. E > >. Act"al scaling down, phasing o"t or a olition of the activities shall e effected p"rs"ant to $irc"lars or Orders iss"ed for the p"rpose y the Office of the &resident.I

Said provision clearly %entions the acts of Jscaling down, phasing o"t and a olitionK of offices only and does not cover the creation of offices or transfer of f"nctions. )evertheless, the act of creating and decentrali1ing is incl"ded in the s" se/"ent provision of Section '@ which provides that:

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

JBhe $o"rt disregards the /"estions raised as to proced"re, fail"re to e>ha"st ad%inistrative re%edies, the standing of certain parties to s"e, for two reasons, WF Geca"se of the de%ands of p" lic interest, incl"ding the need for sta ility in the p" lic service,? and eca"se of the serio"s i%plications of these cases on the ad%inistration of the &hilippine civil service and the rights of p" lic servants.K

Bhe Solicitor General only invo3es the a ove distinctions on the %ista3en ass"%ption that the &resident has no power to a olish an office.

5e do not agree.

> Bhe general r"le has always een that the power to a olish a p" lic office is lodged with the legislat"re.F*'G Bhis proceeds fro% the legal precept that the power to create incl"des the power to destroy. A p" lic office is either created y the $onstit"tion, y stat"te, or y a"thority of law.F*0G Bh"s, e>cept where

>

>

>

> >

LSec. '@. .na"thori1ed organi1ational charges.D .nless otherwise created y law or directed y the &resident of the &hilippines, no organi1ational "nit or changes in 3ey positions in any depart%ent or agency shall e a"thori1ed in their respective organi1ation str"ct"res and e f"nded fro% appropriations y this Act.I ;italics o"rs<

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

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

LSec. =7. Scaling !own and &hase O"t of Activities of Agencies 5ithin the E>ec"tive #ranch. N Bhe heads of

Bhe foregoing provision evidently shows that the &resident is a"thori1ed to effect organi1ational changes incl"ding the creation of offices in the depart%ent or agency concerned.

>

>

>

>

>

>

no law a%ending or repealing decrees.K ;E%phasis s"pplied<

said

Another legal asis of E.O. )o. *A@ is Section @(, #oo3 --- of E.O. )o. @+@ which states:

)ow, let "s ta3e a loo3 at the assailed e>ec"tive order.

LSec. @(. Resid"al &owers. N .nless $ongress provides otherwise, the &resident shall e>ercise s"ch other powers and f"nctions vested in the &resident which are provided for "nder the laws and which are not specifically en"%erated a ove or which are not delegated y the &resident in accordance with law.I ;italic o"rs<

-n the whereas cla"se of E.O. )o. *+*, for%er &resident Estrada anchored his a"thority to deactivate E--# on Section 00 of Rep" lic Act 70=, ;8P *+++ General Appropriations Act<, a provision si%ilar to Section '@ of R.A. 0'=, /"oted in Larin, th"sH

activities and syste%s and proced"resH ; < identify activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of p" lic services and which %ay e scaled down, phasedDo"t or a olishedH and ;c< adopt %eas"res that will res"lt in the strea%lined organi1ation and i%proved overall perfor%ance of their respective agencies.F@AG Section 07 ends "p with the %andate that the act"al strea%lining and prod"ctivity i%prove%ent in agency organi1ation and operation shall e effected p"rs"ant to $irc"lars or Orders iss"ed for the p"rpose y the Office of the &resident.F@=G Bhe law has spo3en clearly. 5e are left only with the d"ty to s"stain.

e>isting str"ct"re of govern%ent offices or "nits therein, incl"ding the lines of control, a"thority and responsi ility etween the%. Bhe E--# is a "rea" attached to the !epart%ent of 8inance. F@'G -t falls "nder the Office of the &resident. 9ence, it is s" 6ect to the &residentIs contin"ing a"thority to reorgani1e.

Bhis provision spea3s of s"ch other powers vested in the &resident "nder the law. 5hat law then gives hi% the power to reorgani1eO -t is &residential !ecree )o. *00@ which a%ended &residential !ecree )o. *=*'. Bhese decrees e>pressly grant the &resident of the &hilippines the contin"ing a"thority to reorgani1e the national govern%ent, which incl"des the power to gro"p, consolidate "rea"s and agencies, to a olish offices, to transfer f"nctions, to create and classify f"nctions, services and activities and to standardi1e salaries and %aterials. Bhe validity of these two decrees are "n/"estiona le. Bhe *+70 $onstit"tion clearly provides that Jall laws, decrees, e>ec"tive orders, procla%ations, letters of instr"ctions and other e>ec"tive iss"ances not inconsistent with this $onstit"tion shall re%ain operative "ntil a%ended, repealed or revo3ed. So far, there is yet

JSec. 00. Organi1ed $hanges. .nless otherwise provided y law or directed y the &resident of the &hilippines, no changes in 3ey positions or organi1ational "nits in any depart%ent or agency shall e a"thori1ed in their respective organi1ational str"ct"res and f"nded fro% appropriations provided y this Act.K

5e adhere to the precedent or r"ling in Larin that this provision recogni1es the a"thority of the &resident to effect organi1ational changes in the depart%ent or agency "nder the e>ec"tive str"ct"re. S"ch a r"ling f"rther finds s"pport in Section 07 of Rep" lic Act )o. 70'(.F@@G .nder this law, the heads of depart%ents, "rea"s, offices and agencies and other entities in the E>ec"tive #ranch are directed ;a< to cond"ct a co%prehensive review of their respective %andates, %issions, o 6ectives, f"nctions, progra%s, pro6ects,

#"t of co"rse, the list of legal asis a"thori1ing the &resident to reorgani1e any depart%ent or agency in the e>ec"tive ranch does not have to end here. 5e %"st not lose sight of the very so"rce of the power N that which constit"tes an e>press grant of power. .nder Section A*, #oo3 --- of E>ec"tive Order )o. @+@ ;otherwise 3nown as the Ad%inistrative $ode of *+70<, Jthe &resident, s" 6ect to the policy in the E>ec"tive Office and in order to achieve si%plicity, econo%y and efficiency, shall have the contin"ing a"thority to reorgani1e the ad%inistrative str"ct"re of the Office of the &resident.K 8or this p"rpose, he %ay transfer the f"nctions of other !epart%ents or Agencies to the Office of the &resident. -n $anoni1ado v. Ag"irre,F@,G we r"led that reorgani1ation Jinvolves the red"ction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or a olition thereof y reason of econo%y or red"ndancy of f"nctions.K -t ta3es place when there is an alteration of the

-t having een d"ly esta lished that the &resident has the a"thority to carry o"t reorgani1ation in any ranch or agency of the e>ec"tive depart%ent, what is then left for "s to resolve is whether or not the reorgani1ation is valid. -n this 6"risdiction, reorgani1ations have een regarded as valid provided they are p"rs"ed in good faith. Reorgani1ation is carried o"t in Lgood faithI if it is for the p"rpose of econo%y or to %a3e "rea"cracy %ore efficient.F@0G &ertinently, Rep" lic Act )o. '','F@7G provides for the circ"%stances which %ay e considered as evidence of ad faith in the re%oval of civil service e%ployees %ade as a res"lt of reorgani1ation, to wit: ;a< where there is a significant increase in the n"% er of positions in the new staffing pattern of the depart%ent or agency concernedH ; < where an office is a olished and another perfor%ing s" stantially the sa%e f"nctions is createdH ;c< where inc"% ents are replaced y those less /"alified in ter%s of stat"s of appoint%ent, perfor%ance and %eritH ;d< where there is a classification of offices in the depart%ent or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perfor% s" stantially the sa%e f"nctions as the original offices, and ;e< where the

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

cease, they wo"ld agency concerned.

e sent

ac3 to the

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

&etitioners clai% that the deactivation of E--# was done in ad faith eca"se fo"r days after its deactivation, &resident Estrada created the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana.

5e are not convinced.

An e>a%ination of the pertinent E>ec"tive OrdersFA(G shows that the deactivation of E--# and the creation of Bas3 8orce Ad"ana were done in good faith. -t was not for the p"rpose of re%oving the E--# e%ployees, "t to achieve the "lti%ate p"rpose of E.O. )o. *+*, which is econo%y. 5hile Bas3 8orce Ad"ana was created to ta3e the place of E--#, its creation does not entail e>pense to the govern%ent.

Secondly, the thr"st of E.O. )o. *+' is to have a s%all gro"p of %ilitary %en "nder the direct control and s"pervision of the &resident as ase of the govern%entIs antiDs%"ggling ca%paign. S"ch a s%aller ase has the necessary powers *< to enlist the assistance of any depart%ent, "rea", or office and to "se their respective personnel, facilities and reso"rcesH and @< Jto select and recr"it personnel fro% within the &SG and -SA8& for assign%ent to the Bas3 8orce.K O vio"sly, the idea is to enco"rage the "tili1ation of personnel, facilities and reso"rces of the already e>isting depart%ents, agencies, "rea"s, etc., instead of %aintaining an independent office with a whole set of personnel and facilities. Bhe E--# had proven itself "rdenso%e for the govern%ent eca"se it %aintained separate offices in every region in the &hilippines.

5hile asically, the f"nctions of the E--# have devolved "pon the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana, we find the latter to have additional new powers. Bhe Bas3 8orce Ad"ana, eing co%posed of ele%ents fro% the &residential Sec"rity Gro"p ;&SG< and -ntelligence Service Ar%ed 8orces of the &hilippines ;-SA8&<,FA'G has the essential power to effect searches, sei1"res and arrests. Bhe E--# did not have this power. Bhe Bas3 8orce Ad"ana has the power to enlist the assistance of any depart%ent, "rea", office, or instr"%entality of the govern%ent, incl"ding govern%entDowned or controlled corporationsH and to "se their personnel, facilities and reso"rces. Again, the E--# did not have this power. And, the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana has the additional a"thority to cond"ct investigation of cases involving illDgotten wealth. Bhis was not e>pressly granted to the E--#.

co%petence of a legiti%ate ody if done in good faith s"ffers fro% no infir%ity. Valid a olition of offices is neither re%oval nor separation of the inc"% ents.FA7G -n the instr"ctive words laid down y this $o"rt in !ario v. 2ison, FA+G thro"gh J"stice A raha% 8. Sar%iento:

8irstly, there is no e%ploy%ent of new personnel 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 are already in the p" lic service, they eing e%ployees of other e>isting agencies. Bheir ten"re with the Bas3 8orce wo"ld only e te%porary, i.e., only when the agency where they elong is called "pon to assist the Bas3 8orce. Since their e%ploy%ent with the Bas3 force is only y way of detail or assign%ent, they retain their e%ploy%ent with the e>isting agencies. And sho"ld the need for the%

And thirdly, it is evident fro% the yearly "dget appropriation of the govern%ent that the creation of the Bas3 8orce Ad"ana was especially intended to lessen E--#Is e>penses. Bracing fro% the yearly General Appropriations Act, it appears that the allotted a%o"nt for the E--#Is general ad%inistration, s"pport, and operations for the year *++,, was &*@7,(A*,(((HFA*G for *++', &*7@,*,',(((HFA@G for *++7, &@*+,77+,(((HFAAG and, for *+++, &@A7,0=A,(((.FA=G Bhese a%o"nts were far a ove the &,(,(((,(((FA,G allocation

$onse/"ently, it cannot e said that there is a feigned reorgani1ation. -n #la/"era v. $ivil Sevice $o%%ission, FA0G we r"led that a reorgani1ation in good faith is one designed to tri% the fat off the "rea"cracy and instit"te econo%y and greater efficiency in its operation.

Reorgani1ations in this 6"risdiction have een regarded as valid provided they are p"rs"ed in good faith. As a general r"le, a reorgani1ation is carried o"t in Jgood faithK if it is for the p"rpose of econo%y or to %a3e "rea"cracy %ore efficient. -n that event, no dis%issal ;in case of dis%issal< or separation act"ally occ"rs eca"se the position itself ceases to e>ist. And in that case, sec"rity of ten"re wo"ld not e a $hinese wall. #e that as it %ay, if the La olition,I which is nothing else "t a separation or re%oval, is done for political reasons or p"rposely to defeat sec"rity of ten"re, otherwise not in good faith, no valid La olitionI ta3es and whatever La olitionI is done, is void a initio. Bhere is an invalid La olitionI as where there is %erely a change of no%enclat"re of positions, or where clai%s of econo%y are elied y the e>istence of a%ple f"nds.

Lastly, we hold that petitionersI right to sec"rity of ten"re is not violated. )othing is etter settled in o"r law than that the a olition of an office within the

-ndeed, there is no s"ch thing as an a sol"te right to hold office. E>cept constit"tional offices which provide for special i%%"nity as regards salary and ten"re, no one can e said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.F=(G

5hile we cast a co%%iserating loo3 "pon the plight of all the E--# e%ployees whose lives perhaps are now torn with "ncertainties, we cannot ignore the "nfort"nate reality that o"r govern%ent is also attling the i%pact of a pl"%%eting econo%y. .nless the govern%ent is given the chance to rec"perate y instit"ting econo%y and efficiency in its syste%, the E--# will not e the last agency to s"ffer the i%pact. 5e cannot fr"strate valid %eas"res which are designed to re "ild the e>ec"tive depart%ent.

59ERE8ORE, the !E)-E!. )o costs.

petition

is

here y

SO OR!ERE!.