Facts:

The case involves Jose Pepito M. Amores, M.D., the petitioner, against the Civil Service Commission and others as respondents, including the Board of Trustees of the Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP) represented by Hon. Manuel M. Dayrit and Dr. Fernando A. Melendres. The case arises from a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 23, 2004, and its subsequent Resolution dated September 20, 2005, which affirmed the Civil Service Commission's October 14, 2003 Resolution. This latter resolution ordered petitioner Amores’ separation from service as Deputy Director for Hospital Support Services at the LCP due to his lack of necessary civil service eligibility.

Petitioner began his career in civil service in 1982 at the LCP as a resident physician. Over the years, he was promoted through the ranks to Medical Specialist, then Department Manager, and ultimately as Deputy Director. When Dr. Calix

...

Facts:

Background and Service Record

• Petitioner Jose Pepito M. Amores began his civil service career in 1982 at the Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP) as a resident physician.
• Over the years, he was promoted successively to Medical Specialist, Department Manager, and finally to Deputy Director for Hospital Support Services.
• His appointment as acting officer-in-charge of the LCP was made following the retirement of then Executive Director Dr. Calixto Zaldivar in 1999, when the Department of Health (DOH) was in the process of selecting a new executive director.

Controversy Surrounding Leadership and Appointment

• During the transitional period, Dr. Fernando A. Melendres, then holding the position of Deputy Director for Medical Support Services, was appointed by President Joseph Estrada as Executive Director of the LCP.
• Although petitioner did not challenge Melendres' qualification for the office, he maintained that he should have been the rightful appointee given his top placement in the evaluation by the DOH Selection Board.
• Tensions escalated when petitioner, along with other employees and doctors, drafted and signed a manifesto airing collective grievances against Melendres' leadership and alleged irregularities in his administration.

Allegations and the Fact-Finding Investigation

• The manifesto contained allegations of anomalous appointments, demotions, irregular procurement practices, and questionable personnel reassignments.
• The grievances extended to personal attacks on Melendres, questioning his fitness due to past issues with substance abuse and failing marital relations.
• As a consequence of the serious nature of the allegations, the DOH instituted a Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the matter.

Findings of the Fact-Finding Committee and Subsequent Charges

• The Committee cleared petitioner of the charge of receiving double compensation; however, it found him guilty of dishonesty for engaging in private practice during official duty hours.
• During the proceedings, Melendres accused petitioner of dishonesty and double compensation, charging that petitioner was conducting private practice medicine on LCP premises during work hours.
• These findings led to administrative actions, culminating in the issuance of a letter on August 27, 2002, by the LCP Board of Trustees, which communicated his scheduled separation effective September 30, 2002.

Procedural and Administrative Developments

• The LCP Board’s resolution, following consultation with the Career Executive Service (CES) Board, recommended petitioner’s termination based primarily on his lack of the necessary CES eligibility required for his position.
• Petitioner subsequently appealed the separation decision before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
• The CSC, in Resolution No. 031050, affirmed his separation by emphasizing that his appointment was rooted in his failure to meet the eligibility criteria for a permanent CES appointment, thereby denying security of tenure.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

• Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeals’ decision on two primary grounds: a) denial of due process by imposing separation based on a ground not previously raised before the DOH Fact-Finding Committee, and b) a violation of his equal protection rights since other similarly situated department managers without CES eligibility were not similarly removed.
• Additionally, petitioner argued that his promotion by Dr. Zaldivar implied a permanent appointment and, hence, security in tenure, which he claimed was abrogated by his removal.

Issue:

• Whether the separation of petitioner from service violated his due process rights, particularly since the grounds for removal (lack of CES eligibility) were not raised during the DOH Fact-Finding Committee’s investigation.
• Whether petitioner’s equal protection rights were infringed upon, given that other department managers in the LCP, who similarly lacked the necessary CES eligibility, were not dismissed.
• Whether petitioner’s claim to continued service on the basis of an alleged permanent appointment, as evidenced by his promotion by his predecessor, violated the established legal requirements for security of tenure within the Career Executive Service.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)