Case Summary (G.R. No. 131675)
Applicable Law and Procedure
The case was decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which guarantees security of tenure and due process for government employees. Additionally, Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994, which governs absences without approved leave, served as a critical regulatory framework. Under this memorandum, an employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days may be separated from service without prior notice but must be informed of the separation within five days from its effectivity.
Chronology of Events and Grounds for Termination
On August 21, 1995, Mayor Pangilinan formally notified petitioner of his removal from the government payroll pursuant to the Civil Service Commission’s Memorandum Circular No. 12. The accusations included:
- Insubordination, particularly for failing to comply with a memorandum issued on May 31, 1995, which mandated the accomplishment of daily time logs.
- Absence without official leave starting July 6, 1995.
- Falsification of public documents related to the daily time record for December 1994.
Mayor Pangilinan asserted that petitioner was duly informed of these administrative directives and that failure to comply, as well as prolonged absence without leave, constituted valid grounds for dismissal.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Defense
Petitioner denied being AWOL and alleged political harassment, claiming he was unlawfully terminated for having voted for a political rival of the incumbent mayor. He argued he was not given prior notice or opportunity to be heard, infringing on his right to due process and security of tenure. Petitioner submitted affidavits, including one from Vice-Mayor Constancio A. Fernandez, to establish that he was reporting to the Vice Mayor’s office pursuant to advice from the Regional Civil Service Commission, but was barred from signing the official log book by the Personnel Officer Benito Vicencio, who had certified petitioner’s AWOL status.
Decisions by the Civil Service Commission and Court of Appeals
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed petitioner’s appeal and upheld his termination, relying primarily on the Personnel Officer’s certification and the absence of any approved leave application during the period in question. The motion for reconsideration was denied, rejecting petitioner’s affidavits as "new evidence," on the basis that petitioner was already afforded the right to be heard.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s resolution, holding that petitioner was not denied due process, as he had the opportunity to be heard during the administrative proceedings, including the motion for reconsideration. The Court concluded that findings of the CSC were supported by substantial evidence, particularly petitioner’s failure to report for work and non-compliance with CSC-mandated rules.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings
The Supreme Court found merit in petitioner’s claim, focusing on key points related to due process and evidentiary sufficiency:
- While Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12 requires no prior notice to separate an employee AWOL for 30 days or more, the employee must receive notice of separation within five days from its effectivity.
- The sole basis for petitioner’s termination was the certification from the Personnel Officer declaring him AWOL from July 6 to August 6, 1995.
- Petitioner’s uncontested allegation that he was not furnished a copy of the Mayor’s comment, which significantly impacted his ability to defend himself, raised serious due process concerns.
- The affidavits submitted with the motion for reconsideration, including that of the Vice Mayor, directly contested the Personnel Officer’s certification by establishing that petitioner was physically present and reporting for duty, albeit unable to sign the required log book because of obstruction by the Personnel Officer.
- Given that one affiant was the Vice Mayor, whose official acts enjoy a presumption of regularity, and considering that petitioner claimed he was effectively removed from official duties and replaced by another employee, the Personnel Officer’s certification could not stand as substantial evidence without further investigation.
- The Court emphasized that findings of fact by administrative agencies must be supported by substantial evidence, and in this instance, the evidence relied upon was insufficient give
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 131675)
Background and Procedural History
- Pedro C. Lameyra, petitioner, was employed as janitor/messenger at the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna.
- Initially appointed temporarily on February 2, 1988, and given a permanent appointment on January 1, 1989, by then Municipal Mayor Melquiadez Acomular.
- Mayor Acomular was succeeded by George S. Pangilinan after the May 8, 1995, elections.
- On August 21, 1995, Mayor Pangilinan informed Lameyra via letter that he was dropped from the employee roll of the local government of Famy pursuant to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994.
- Grounds for dismissal: insubordination and absence without official leave (AWOL).
- Lameyra appealed to CSC alleging unlawful termination without due process and political harassment due to his vote for a rival candidate.
- CSC upheld dismissal citing absenteeism from July 6 to August 6, 1995 without official leave.
- Subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by Lameyra included affidavits contesting the grounds for dismissal.
- Motion for reconsideration denied; CSC ruled Lameyra was not officially reporting for work despite presence in the municipal premises.
- Court of Appeals affirmed CSC’s decision and findings.
- Petition for review filed before the Supreme Court contests dismissal and procedural due process.
Petitioner's Contentions
- Alleges unlawful termination without just cause and as political harassment by Mayor Pangilinan.
- Contends he was a permanent employee entitled to security of tenure.
- Denies absenteeism, asserting that he was prevented from logging attendance by Personnel Officer Benito Vicencio.
- Claims he was not furnished a copy of Mayor Pangilinan’s comments prior to CSC resolution, impairing his opportunity to contest.
- Asserts violation of due process as no prior investigation or hearing was conducted.
- Challenges the Court of Appeals’ conclusion of abandonment and reliance on allegedly insufficient evidence.
- Submits sworn statements, including from Vice Mayor Constancio Fernandez and a co-employee, attesting that he reported for work during the disputed period.
Respondent’s Defense
- Maintains dismissal was pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994 for insubordination and AWOL.
- Points to petitioner’s failure to comply with a May 31, 1995 memorandum requiring daily filling of time log book.
- Attests that petitioner deliberately refused to comply and did not justify absence.
- Reports of petitioner’s habitual tardiness even before memorandum issued.
- Filed falsificati