Macayayong vs.

Ople
G.R. No. L-51580
December 2, 1991
Dismissal, Suspensions, Reinstatements, etc Dismissal in Government Boards and
Commissions

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking the annulment of the order to
drop Atty. Macayayong as the Legal Officer III of the Bureau of Labor Standards for
abandonment of post issued by respondent Secretary Ople, sustained in other resolution by
CSC Chairman Jacobo Clave.

Macayayong was detailed with the Office of the President until his detail was
terminated by the Department of Labor Undersecretary, with the Malacanang Complaint and
Action. The Office of the President however requested that petitioners detail be extended
until the termination of all cases he was handling. Notwithstanding the request, the Secretary
of Labor in a telegram manifested that the detail of the petitioner was not sanctioned by his
Office and recalled the petitioner to his home office.

After reporting to the head office and rendering service for another three months,
Macayayong filed for a leave of absence. Subsequently, petitioner returned to the Office of
the President. Petitioner was again recalled to the head office for his failure to inform and
clear the assignment with the department before heading to the Office of the President. In the
same recall letter, it was stated that should he fail to return within 5 days from the receipt of
notice, he will be replaced.

On June 5 and 19 1976, the Secretary of Labor notified petitioner that his service
would be terminated effective January 31, 1976 by reason of his failure to report back to his
Office which urgently needed his services.

The petitioner appealed the order rendered by the Secretary of Labor to the CSC, then
to the Office of the President through the Presidential Assistant, who also happened to be the
CSC Chairman Clave. However, the appealed order was affirmed both times. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not petitioners summary dismissal is violative of the due process of law.

HELD:

1. NO.

The petitioner was not denied due process of law because records shoe that
before the petitioner was dropped from the roster of the Department of Labor, he was
notified twice by the Home Office to report back to work (January 5 and 19 1976).

The petitioner contended that he only received both letters on January 30

1976, which was the eve of effectivity of his dismissal on January 31 1976. Assuming

Prepared By: Angelique Claudine T. Lim

 that his contentions were true, due process contemplates freedom from arbitrariness
and what is required is fairness or justice, the substance rather than the form being
paramount. There is no violation of due process even where no hearing was
conducted because the parties were given the chance to explain their side. Even if the
petitioner was not given prior notice of a motion, he cannot claim denial of due
process if he was given the opportunity to file for a motion for reconsideration.

Prepared By: Angelique Claudine T. Lim