Case Digest (G.R. No. 110954)
Facts:
Petitioners Delfin N. Divinagracia, Jr. and Alexis D. San Luis sought review of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 93-1996, which ordered the reinstatement of private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario as Municipal Budget Officer after the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB) had declared illegal the 1985 displacement of Filomena R. Mancita as Municipal Development Coordinator and ordered her reinstatement; San Luis had been appointed Municipal Budget Officer in 1991 (temporary) and in 1992 (permanent) following a series of appointments to the Budget Office.
The CSC denied petitioners’ request for reconsideration and directed restoration of Nacario; petitioners filed this petition in the Supreme Court, which issued a status quo ante order and ultimately denied the petition.
Issues:
- Did the Court err in affirming CSC Resolution No. 93-1996 ordering the reinstatement of Prescilla B. Nacario?
- Does Sec. 13, Rule VI, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 on appointments in a chain of promotions apply to the movements here?
- Was Nacario’s movement to MPDC a valid transfer or an involuntary removal violating security of tenure requiring San Luis to vacate the Budget Officer post?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and CSC Resolution No. 93-1996 was affirmed insofar as it ordered the reinstatement of Prescilla B. Nacario as Municipal Budget Officer of Pili, Camarines Sur. The Court ordered the incumbent mayor to reinstate Nacario immediately and directed petitioner Alexis D. San Luis to vacate the office, without prejudice to his right to seek reinstatement to his former DENR position if legally feasible.
Ratio:
The Court held that Sec. 13, Rule VI did not apply because there was no series of promotions, the appointments were not simultaneously submitted to the CSC, and Nacario’s ouster resulted from an MSPB reinstatement of Mancita rather than CSC disapproval of a promotion; moreover the movement was a lateral transfer, not a promotion, as duties did not increase and Nacario’s salary in fact decreased. The Court found the transfer unconsented and arbitrary, thus amounting to removal without cause in violation of the constitutionally and statutorily protected security of tenure (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2, par.3, 1987 Constitution), and rejected petitioners’ due process claim because they had opportunities to be heard before the CSC.
Doctrine:
- Sec. 13, Rule VI, E.O. 292 applies only where there is a genuine chain of promotions, simultaneous submission of appointments to the CSC, and CSC disapproval of the higher appointment.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)