View full case

DELFIN N. DIVINAGRACIA v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS

FACTS:

The case involves the termination of Filomena R. Mancita, who was appointed as the Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, in a permanent capacity in 1980. In 1983, the office was renamed Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC). In 1985, Mancita's services were terminated due to the abolition of the MDC position as a result of the reorganization of the local government of Pili. She appealed her termination to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB), which declared her separation from the service illegal and ordered her reinstatement as MPDC. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed the appeal, upholding the reinstatement order. During the pendency of the case, Prescilla B. Nacario, who was appointed as MPDC in 1985, filed a petition questioning the CSC's resolution.

Mayor Divinagracia sought reconsideration of the opinion of Chairperson Sto. Tomas regarding the ouster of Mancita and the appointment of Nacario as MPDC. The request for reconsideration was denied by the CSC, upholding Nacario's right to security of tenure. The CSC relied on a provision in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates the return of an appointee to their former position if their appointment is subsequently disapproved. Petitioners filed a petition to nullify the CSC resolution, arguing that the provision does not apply in this case and that Nacario deemed to have vacated the position of Budget Officer. They also claimed that San Luis was denied due process. Nacario claimed she did not voluntarily apply for the transfer and that she did not abandon her former position. Public respondents insisted on the application of the automatic reversion rule to the present case. The court denied the petition and ordered the reinstatement of Nacario to her former position as MPDC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the movement of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC can be considered a promotion.

  2. Whether the appointments of the parties concerned were simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval.

  3. Whether the ouster of Nacario from the Office of MPDC was a result of the CSC's disapproval of her appointment.

  4. Whether the transfer of the private respondent from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC constituted removal without cause, thereby violating her security of tenure.

  5. Whether the private respondent vacated her former position as Budget Officer and abdicated her right to hold the office.

  6. Whether the appointment of the new Budget Officer is valid considering the invalidity of the private respondent's removal.

  7. Whether or not there was a violation of due process in the removal of Prescilla B. Nacario from her position as Municipal Budget Officer.

  8. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has the authority to reinstate an employee who was illegally removed from office.

RULING:

  1. The movement of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC cannot be considered a promotion as it does not entail an increase in duties and responsibilities or a corresponding increase in salary. It was a lateral transfer.

  2. The appointments of the parties concerned were not simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval. Nacario's appointment was approved on June 13, 1985, while San Luis' appointment was approved on February 9, 1993.

  3. The ouster of Nacario from the Office of MPDC was not a result of the CSC's disapproval of her appointment. It was a result of the MSPB's decision to reinstate another employee.

  4. The unconsented lateral transfer of the private respondent amounted to removal without cause, making it an invalid violation of her security of tenure.

  5. The private respondent did not vacate her former position as Budget Officer or abdicate her right to hold the office when she accepted the position of MPDC, as she could not be deemed to have been separated from her former position despite executing the functions and powers of MPDC.

  6. The appointment of the new Budget Officer is invalid as the separation of the former incumbent (private respondent) was not in order, therefore, the new appointee should relinquish the position in favor of the private respondent.

  7. There was a violation of due process in the removal of Prescilla B. Nacario from her position as Municipal Budget Officer. While she was given notice of the administrative investigation, she was not provided an opportunity to be heard in her defense. The lack of previous notice is not the issue; rather, it is the denial of the opportunity to be heard that violates due process.

  8. The CSC has the authority to reinstate an employee who was illegally removed from office. In this case, the CSC Resolution No. 93-1996 is affirmed insofar as it orders the reinstatement of Nacario to her position. The incumbent Mayor of Pili, or whoever is acting on his behalf, is ordered to reinstate Nacario immediately.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 provides for the automatic restoration of a person to their former position if there is a series of promotions, simultaneous submission of appointments for approval, and disapproval of the appointment of a person proposed to a higher position.

  • A lateral transfer does not constitute a promotion as it does not entail an increase in duties and responsibilities or a corresponding increase in salary.

  • The contemporaneous construction of a statute or rule by the CSC is entitled to respect, but the court may depart from such interpretation if it is clearly erroneous or if there is no ambiguity in the rule.

  • Transfer of an employee shall not be considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service, provided that the employee is informed of the reason and given the opportunity to appeal to the commission.

  • A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, or aims to lure the employee away from their permanent position, cannot be done without the employee's consent, as it would constitute removal from office. Permanent transfer can only occur if the employee is first removed from the position held and then appointed to another position.

  • Exceptions to the rule that unconsented transfers amount to removal include transfers that have no substantial change in title, rank, and salary, transfers carried out under a specific statute that authorizes the reassignment of employees and officers, transfers pending the determination of an administrative charge, or transfers made in good faith and in the interest of the service.

  • Security of tenure is an important aspect of the civil service system, protecting faithful employees from political and personal prejudicial reprisals. It affords employees permanence of employment, subject to the prescribed period and cause-based removal.

  • The acceptance of a second office may not be deemed as vacating the former position if there was involuntariness or coercion involved in the transfer.

  • The appointment of a new officer may be invalid if there is an existing condition that necessitates the validation of the separation of the former incumbent.

  • Due process requires both notice and the opportunity to be heard.

  • Public officials should abide by the Constitution and observe the tenurial security of public servants.

  • Public servants should not be moved or removed from their positions without any lawful cause and without due process.

  • The CSC has the authority to reinstate an employee who was illegally removed from office.