Case Digest (G.R. No. 131675)
Facts:
Pedro C. Lameyra v. Mayor George S. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 131675, January 18, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pedro C. Lameyra was a janitor/messenger of the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna. He was first appointed temporarily on February 2, 1988 and granted permanent status on January 1, 1989 by then Mayor Melquiadez Acomular. After Mayor Acomular's electoral defeat, respondent Mayor George S. Pangilinan assumed office.
On August 21, 1995, petitioner received a letter from Mayor Pangilinan informing him that he was dropped from the municipal payroll pursuant to Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994, citing insubordination and absence without official leave (AWOL). Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), asserting that he was a permanent employee who was dismissed without prior written notice, investigation or hearing, in violation of his security of tenure and due process; he also alleged political harassment for having voted for a rival.
In his comment, Mayor Pangilinan explained that he had issued a May 31, 1995 memorandum requiring daily time log compliance (citing Civil Service Rules XV and Executive Order No. 5, series of 1990), that petitioner failed to comply, and that petitioner had not reported for work since July 6, 1995 according to a certification by Personnel Officer Benito L. Vicencio; the mayor also asserted prior reports of lateness and a pending falsification complaint.
The CSC, in Resolution No. 96-0828 (Feb. 6, 1996), denied petitioner’s appeal and sustained the dropping from the rolls for AWOL, relying on Vicencio's certification and the absence of approved leave applications. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration attaching three sworn statements (including one by Vice-Mayor Constancio A. Fernandez) claiming petitioner did report for duty but was prevented from signing the log book. In Resolution No. 970558 (Jan. 28, 1997), the CSC denied the motion for reconsideration, treating the affidavits as not constituting newly discovered evidence and reiterating that petitioner had not officially reported for duty.
Petitioner sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals, which denied his petition and sustained the CSC’s findings as supported by substantial evidence and holding that petitioner was afforded due process. After...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner denied due process when he was dropped from the municipal payroll?
- Whether the CSC and the Court of Appeals correctly upheld petitioner’s separation for AWOL under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994?
- Whether the personnel officer’s certification constituted substantial evidence to support petitioner’s dismissal in light of petitioner’s affidavits and allegations that he wa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)