Case Digest (G.R. No. 98027)
Facts:
Jose A. Abaya, Aniceto O. Cada, Jr., Presidio M. Carino, Aida D. Fulgencio, Ernesto G. Garcia, Bonifacio S. Molina, Remigio P. Pugat and Domingo C. Tobias v. Civil Service Commission, Hon. Senen D. Bacani in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, and Dante Q. Barbosa in his capacity as Chairman, Reorganization Appeals Board of the Department of Agriculture, G.R. No. 98027, October 07, 1994, Supreme Court En Banc, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were employees of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in Pangasinan. On January 30, 1987 President Aquino issued Executive Order No. 116 reorganizing the DA, abolishing the Municipal Agriculture and Food Officer (MAFO) position and creating Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) posts. Under Memorandum Circular No. 7 (Oct. 1987) only those who passed an evaluation and were placed on the Personnel Placement List (PPL) could be appointed MAOs. On March 5, 1988 petitioners took the regional evaluation, qualified for the PPL, and were appointed MAOs effective upon assumption of duty but not earlier than July 1, 1988.
Protestants who had failed to qualify sought reconsideration before the Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB). A second evaluation on November 7, 1988 led RAB Resolution No. 17 (7 Nov 1988) which revised the PPL ranking and excluded petitioners Abaya, Cada and Fulgencio, resulting in their displacement as MAOs. Petitioners (and some co-aggrieved employees) petitioned the RAB for re-evaluation on January 30, 1989 and were given a period to submit authenticated documents. Acting on those submissions and a separate request, RAB issued Resolution No. 17-A (26 Mar 1990) affirming the earlier exclusions and further disqualifying Carino, Garcia, Pugat, Tobias and Molina for failing to fall within the first forty‑eight places (the number of positions to be filled).
The petitioners appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which, by resolution dated September 28, 1990, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and denied reconsideration on February 8, 1991. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. On October 22, 1991 several incumbent MAOs (whose rankings were upheld) moved to intervene, initially seeking dismissal of the case and contempt proceedings for forum shopping; in later pleadings they sought reinstatement claims consistent with the rulings in Pari-an v. Civil Service Commission and Sison v. Civil Service Commission.
Along the proceedings, several factual and procedural developments occurred: some petitioners ceased prosecution or experienced changed circumstances — Cada was reappointed MAO in 1993 (devolution under the Local Government Code), Carino withdrew from active prosecution after filing a memorandum, Garcia sought to be dropped as petitioner after attaining an MAO post, Pugat accepted a lower position, Tobias retired, Abaya became non-responsi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot as to petitioner Aniceto O. Cada, Jr. following his reappointment as MAO?
- Can the intervening incumbent MAOs, who moved initially for dismissal and contempt, obtain affirmative relief or claim the right to seek dismissal in this proceeding?
- Whether the RAB committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the PPL and dislodging petitioners, and whether the CSC erred in affirming the RAB?
- Does failure of respondents to file comments with the CSC or the Commission's delay in deciding the appea...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)