View full case

CARLOS COTIANGCO v. PROVINCE OF BILIRAN

FACTS:

This case involves a petition seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's resolution that deemed the removal of petitioners from their positions in the Biliran Provincial Health Office lawful. Petitioners held permanent appointments as public health workers in the Province of Biliran. On October 23, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed a resolution approving the revised structure and staffing pattern of the provincial government, which led to the abolition of all positions except those of the Provincial Treasurer and elective positions. Executive Order No. 98-08 was then issued, declaring all positions under the new staffing pattern vacant and requiring permanent employees to submit their application for the new positions. Petitioners refused to apply and filed a suit questioning the validity of the executive order. As a result of the reorganization, the positions occupied by petitioners were excluded or abolished. Petitioners received notices of termination/non-reappointment, which they appealed to the governor and subsequently to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission dismissed their appeal, finding that the reorganization was not tainted with bad faith, and petitioners failed to show that they were replaced by less qualified employees. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Civil Service Commission's resolution with modification, directing the possible reappointment of one petitioner. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition to challenge the decision, arguing that the reorganization was done in bad faith and they were denied due process.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was bad faith on the part of the province in effecting the reorganization.

  2. Whether the "next in rank" rule applies in this case.

  3. Whether petitioners were deprived of due process when they were not screened and evaluated for possible appointment to new positions.

  4. Whether the petitioners were deprived of their employment without due process of law.

  5. Whether the qualification and competence of existing employees should be evaluated for possible appointment to new positions, even if they have not filed their applications.

RULING:

  1. Petitioners failed to present evidence to show bad faith on the part of the province in effecting the reorganization. The number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the province was reduced and there was no evidence of the creation of offices performing substantially the same functions as the abolished offices. There was also no evidence of reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned that performed substantially the same function as the original offices. Petitioners were also not able to show that they were replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance, and merit.

  2. The "next in rank" rule does not apply in this case as it specifically applies only to promotions and not to positions created in the course of a valid reorganization. The appointing authority has the discretion to appoint a candidate who possesses the minimum qualifications required by law.

  3. Petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had not filed their applications for possible appointment to new positions.

  4. The petitioners were not deprived of their employment without due process of law because they had not filed their applications for the new positions despite the invitation to do so.

  5. Existing employees who have not filed their applications for the new positions are not required to be evaluated for possible appointment. Only those who have filed the requisite applications may be considered by the placement committee. The filing of the application form is necessary to signal an employee's interest in a position and for the evaluation of qualifications to have a basis.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Good faith is presumed and the burden of proving bad faith lies on the party alleging it.

  • Section 2 of R.A. 6656 provides instances that may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal from office of a government officer or employee pursuant to a reorganization.

  • The "next in rank" rule applies only to promotions and not to positions created in the course of a valid reorganization. The appointing authority has discretion in appointing candidates who possess the minimum qualifications required by law.

  • Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had not filed their applications for possible appointment to new positions.

  • Employees need to file their applications for new positions to be considered for possible appointment. (Section 6 of R.A. 6656)

  • The placement committee is not required to evaluate the qualifications of all previous employees if they have not signified their intention to continue working in the agency being reorganized. (Ruling)