View full case

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN A. ZOZOBRADO

FACTS:

Agustin Zozobrado, an employee of the National Power Corporation (NPC), received a letter from the NPC President stating that he was removed from the rolls. Zozobrado appealed this decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). However, the CSC dismissed his appeal, upholding his removal. Zozobrado then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the CSC.

Zozobrado then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, filing a petition for review. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Zozobrado, ordering his reinstatement along with full backwages and other emoluments. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

NPC contested the Court of Appeals' decision on the basis that Zozobrado's ratings were based on his performance and not a deliberate effort to remove him from the rolls. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals found that Zozobrado's separation from service lacked due process due to non-compliance with notice requirements. Further, the court observed discrepancies in the rating system used and incomplete evaluation of Zozobrado's performance.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the evaluation of the petitioner's performance was incomplete and therefore unfair.

  2. Whether or not there was a pattern to dislodge the petitioner from the rolls of NAPOCOR.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's separation from service violated due process.

  4. Whether or not respondent's dropping from the rolls is a violation of substantive due process.

  5. Whether or not the unsatisfactory rating given to respondent was a deliberate attempt to dismiss him from service.

  6. Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash the information for failure to state the cause of action.

  7. Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash the information.

RULING:

  1. The evaluation of the petitioner's performance was incomplete, as only Parts III and IV were rated by the petitioner's immediate supervisor. This rendered the evaluation unfair and impossible for the petitioner to receive a fair rating without the other parts being accomplished.

  2. There was a pattern to dislodge the petitioner from NAPOCOR's rolls, indicated by the petitioner's previous satisfactory ratings prior to the controversial ratings made solely by his supervisor, the blocking of a review of his ratings, and the alleged efforts to have the petitioner withdraw his charges against other pilots.

  3. The dropping of the petitioner from the rolls violated due process, as there was insufficient compliance with the requirements provided by law. The petitioner was not notified in writing of his unsatisfactory rating within 30 days and was never warned in writing that a subsequent unsatisfactory performance would lead to his separation. The dropping from the rolls is considered a violation of procedural due process, which is a constitutional human right.

  4. The Supreme Court held that respondent's dropping from the rolls is indeed a violation of substantive due process. The evidence presented showed that the unsatisfactory rating given to respondent was a direct result of his testimony in court concerning graft charges against NPC employees. The deliberate attempt to thwart his testimony and the delay in informing him of the termination of his employment demonstrate the ill motive of Gen. Lagera. The Court found that the dropping of respondent from the rolls was a clear violation of his rights.

  5. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that the unsatisfactory rating given to respondent was a deliberate attempt to dismiss him from service. The Court noted that respondent had consistently received very satisfactory performance ratings for 8 ½ years, while the last unsatisfactory rating was made for a shorter period and was based solely on the rating of Gen. Lagera. The Court concluded that the unsatisfactory ratings were not based on respondent's performance as a pilot, but rather on his reporting of alleged anomalies in the NPC.

  6. No, the trial court did not err in granting the motion to quash the information for failure to state the cause of action.

  7. Yes, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash the information.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An incomplete evaluation of an employee's performance renders it unfair and denies the employee a fair rating.

  • The presence of a pattern or motive to dislodge an employee from service can indicate unfair treatment and violation of employment rights.

  • The dropping of an employee from the rolls without due process is a violation of procedural due process, which is a constitutional right.

  • Dropping an employee from the rolls without due process violates substantive due process.

  • Deliberate attempts to thwart an employee's testimony in court and delay in informing him of termination demonstrate ill motive.

  • Unsatisfactory ratings made solely by one rater, especially for a shorter period, may indicate an attempt to dismiss an employee.

  • Very satisfactory ratings in other areas of work may indicate the credibility and competence of an employee, even if the areas of work are different.

  • Blocking reviews and disregarding recommendations in the performance appraisal system violate the principles of fairness and objectivity.

  • The trial court may quash an information if it fails to allege the elements of a crime or if the facts alleged do not constitute an offense.

  • The trial court should not quash an information on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, as the evaluation and assessment of the evidence are within the domain of the trial court.

  • The trial court's discretion to quash an information should be exercised judiciously and only when there is clearly no cause of action.