Facts:

The case in question involves Rafael M. Abaya as the petitioner-appellee and Antonio J. Villegas, the Mayor of Manila, along with Abelardo Subido, the Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, as respondents. It entails events that unfolded after Abaya passed the civil service examination for patrolmen on November 24, 1962, and was subsequently appointed as a patrolman in Manila on March 3, 1964. The Commissioner of Civil Service approved Abaya's appointment on May 20, 1964, contingent on several conditions including passing a physical and medical examination, having no pending administrative case, and ensuring no protests against the appointment would affect its approval. Abaya commenced his service on October 16, 1964.

Trouble arose on May 18, 1965, when the Commissioner sent a communication to the Mayor stating that Abaya had provided a false answer to a question in his civil service examination application regarding any prior legal troubles. Specifically, the questio

...

Facts:

Appointment and Civil Service Examination

• Petitioner Rafael M. Abaya passed the civil service examination for patrolmen held on November 24, 1962.
• He was appointed as a Manila patrolman by respondent Mayor Antonio J. Villegas on March 3, 1964.
• The appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, Abelardo Subido, on May 20, 1964, subject to specific conditions:
• Submission and clearance of the usual physical and medical examination.
• Absence of any pending administrative cases, protests, or adverse decisions affecting his eligibility.
• Petitioner commenced service on October 16, 1964.

Allegation of False Answer in the Application

• On May 18, 1965, the Commissioner notified the Mayor that petitioner had provided a false answer in his application form.
• Specifically, petitioner answered “No” to Question No. 6 which inquired if he had ever been accused, indicted, or tried for any offense.
• In reality, at the time of filing, cases were pending against him in the Fiscal’s Office and the City Court of Manila, including:
• Criminal Case No. F-016885 for slight physical injuries.
• Criminal Case No. D-095207 for trespass to dwelling.
• Criminal Case No. J-064029 for violation of section 844, Revised Ordinances.
• I.S. No. 61-28520 for estafa.
• The false statement led the Commissioner to declare petitioner’s civil service eligibility as fraudulently obtained and ordered his immediate termination.

Procedural Developments and Due Process Concerns

• The Mayor, upon receiving the advisory from the Commissioner, sought the opinion of the City Fiscal of Manila.
• The City Fiscal opined on June 7, 1965 that termination without a prior hearing on the alleged violation would violate due process as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Civil Service Law (R.A. 2260).
• Despite this opinion, on June 15, 1965, the Commissioner reiterated that a hearing would be “a useless act” and directed the immediate termination of petitioner’s services.
• The Mayor required petitioner to explain his answer.
• In his response dated June 18, 1965, petitioner admitted to having given a negative reply to Question No. 6.
• On October 18, 1965, based on these proceedings, the Mayor terminated petitioner’s services in the Manila Police Department, with immediate effect.
• Since May 1965, petitioner’s salary was withheld, prompting him to seek judicial relief through a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

Lower Court Decision and Appeal

• The trial court, on June 15, 1966, ordered:
• The reinstatement of petitioner into service.
• The payment of back salaries accruing since May 1965.
• The reservation of initiating proper proceedings for eventual removal.
• The case reached the appellate level solely on an appeal taken by the Commissioner.
• Central to the dispute was the issue of due process and the constitutional protection of security of tenure in civil service.

Issue:

• Whether the cancellation of petitioner’s civil service eligibility and his subsequent termination without a prior formal hearing violated his constitutional right to due process.
• Whether petitioner’s mere admission of a “negative reply” to Question No. 6, without evidence of intentional fraud or deception in his application, justifies his removal from service.
• Whether the absence of a formal investigation or hearing before the imposition of administrative sanctions is legally permissible under the Civil Service Law and the principles of natural justice.
• Whether the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies should apply in a case where the act of termination is patently illegal and where immediate relief is required to protect the petitioner’s rights.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)