Case Digest (G.R. No. 256878)
Facts:
In Atty. Ma. Rosario Manalang-Demigillo vs. Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) (G.R. Nos. 168613 & 185571, March 5, 2013), Manalang-Demigillo was a permanent Senior Vice President appointed by TIDCORP’s Board under Republic Act No. 8494 (1998), which reorganized the former PhilEXIM into TIDCORP and authorized the Board to “provide for an organizational structure and staffing pattern” and “appoint, promote, transfer, assign and re-assign personnel…any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding.” In 2002, relying on OGCC Opinion No. 221, the Board approved Resolution No. 1365, abolishing the Legal and Corporate Services Department (LCSD) and reassigning Demigillo to head the Remedial and Credit Management Support Sector (RCMSS). She protested to the Board and then to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), challenging both the reorganization and her reassignment. The CSC upheld the Board’s authority under RA 8494 but held the reorgCase Digest (G.R. No. 256878)
Facts:
- Legislative and Organizational Background
- Republic Act No. 8494 (1998) renamed the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation as the Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) and empowered its Board under Section 7 to “provide for an organizational structure and staffing pattern,” and granted “exclusive and final authority to appoint, promote, transfer, assign and re-assign personnel.”
- Section 8 of RA 8494 allowed incumbent personnel up to one year for transition, with separation benefits for those not accommodated.
- Petitioner’s Appointment and Reorganization
- Rosario Manalang-Demigillo was appointed Senior Vice President (PG 15) of TIDCORP’s Legal and Corporate Services Department (LCSD) with permanent status.
- In September 2002, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 221:
- Section 7 authorizes the Board to reorganize perpetually.
- Section 8’s one-year period applied only to the initial transition.
- Pursuant to OGCC Opinion, on October 22, 2002, the Board approved Resolution No. 1365, Series 2002, adopting an Organizational Refinement/Restructuring Plan:
- Abolition of LCSD; creation of Remedial and Credit Management Support Sector (RCMSS).
- Reappointment of Demigillo as SVP to head the RCMSS.
- Challenges, Appeals, and Lower Rulings
- Demigillo’s December 2002 letter to the Board contested the reorganization’s validity and her reassignment.
- She appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on January 31, 2003.
- The Board dismissed her internal challenge (Board Decision No. 03-002).
- The CSC’s October 14, 2004 Resolution No. 041092 held:
- Board had continuing authority under RA 8494;
- Reorganization violated Section 6 of RA 6656—Demigillo suffered functional demotion;
- Her drop from rolls contravened MC 40, Rule XII, Sec. 2.2.
- Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA):
- CA Fourth Division (June 27, 2005)—affirmed CSC on reorganization but on alternative “alter ego” theory and presumed good faith; denied reinstatement.
- CA Special Division (Nov. 28, 2008)—affirmed functional demotion and invalid drop from rolls; ordered reinstatement.
- Consolidation and Supreme Court Review
- Demigillo’s petition (G.R. No. 168613) challenged:
- Application of the “alter ego” doctrine to TIDCORP Board;
- Validity of 2002 reorganization absent proof against economy and efficiency.
- TIDCORP’s petition (G.R. No. 185571) contended:
- No demotion occurred;
- Drop from rolls complied with MC 40, Rule XII, Sec. 2.2.
- On March 8, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc consolidated the cases.
Issues:
- G.R. No. 168613 (Demigillo)
- Whether the TIDCORP Board may be deemed an alter ego of the President such that its reorganization power derives from the President’s continuing authority.
- Whether the 2002 Organizational Refinement/Restructuring Plan is invalid for lack of evidence of economy and efficiency.
- G.R. No. 185571 (TIDCORP)
- Whether Demigillo’s reassignment to RCMSS constituted a demotion.
- Whether her drop from the rolls complied with due‐process requirements under Memorandum Circular No. 40, Rule XII, Section 2.2.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)