G.R. No. 69184 - People vs. Ablao

The case involves petitioner Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Board of Directors and Reynaldo P. Martin versus respondent Marie Jean C. Lapid, a Casual Clerk (Teller) assigned at the PCSO-Bataan Provincial District Office.
Lapid was employed as a casual employee whose appointment is governed by the provisions set out in the Plantilla of Casual Appointment, which, by its very nature, implies termination of employment when the service’s need ceases.

On June 17, 2005, an incident allegedly occurred in which Lapid confronted and verbally abused Mr. Lolito O. Guemo, the Chief Lottery Operations Officer, in the presence of other employees and patients.

Guemo’s sworn statement and subsequent incident report detailed that Lapid not only shouted insults but also made inflammatory comments in a public setting.
The report was supported by the sworn testimonies of six co-employees and an additional report by the office security personnel.

Following the incident, on June 20, 2005, Lapid was issued a memorandum requiring her to explain the incident in writing within 72 hours.

On June 24, 2005, she submitted her reply, denying the allegations and even hinting at possible misconduct on Guemo’s part.

July 19, 2005 – Lapid filed an “Answer, with Comment and Motion to Dismiss,” challenging the merits of the complaint.
August 11, 2005 – The PCSO Legal Department recommended the issuance of a Formal Charge against her for Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and Grave Misconduct. This charge was documented in a memorandum and an unsigned Formal Charge, signed by the General Manager.
August 31 and October 6, 2005 – Additional incidents occurred where Lapid was reported to have committed further acts of misconduct, including defacing the organizational chart and creating disturbances.
October 12, 2005 – The PCSO Board of Directors, through Resolution No. 340, Series of 2005, confirmed the termination of Lapid on the grounds of the aforementioned administrative offenses.
October 17, 2005 – Lapid was formally notified of her termination.

Lapid filed a motion for reconsideration of the termination on October 20, 2005, which was denied on January 6, 2006.
She subsequently appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which, in Resolution No. 070396 dated March 6, 2007, upheld her dismissal on the basis that, as a casual employee, she was not entitled to the security of tenure.
Lapid then sought judicial relief by filing a petition for review, contesting that her termination was carried out without observing due process.
A subsequent decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CSC’s ruling on procedural grounds, holding that even casual employees are entitled to due process and that Lapid’s dismissal, unsupported by a formally signed charge and proper investigation, was executed without cause.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings against Lapid were conducted in compliance with the due process requirements mandated by the Constitution and the Civil Service Law.
Whether a casual employee, by virtue of their appointment, forfeits any security of tenure to the extent that dismissal without due process is permissible.

Whether the absence of a formally signed and substantiated Formal Charge, as well as the failure to conduct a proper investigation, rendered Lapid’s termination arbitrary.
Whether the CSC or the PCSO could rely solely on the casual nature of employment to bypass the constitutional requirement of due process in disciplinary cases.

Whether it was proper for the CA to review the dismissal on the merits of procedural due process rather than on the status of casual employment.
Whether the petitioners’ reliance on the traditional characterization of casual employment contravened newer judicial pronouncements affirming due process rights.