FACTS:

On November 7, 2000, Republic Act No. 8973 was passed, creating the Province of Zamboanga Sibugay and reducing the Internal Revenue Allotment of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur. Governor Aurora E. Cerilles sought the opinion of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) regarding the reduction of the provincial government's workforce and the CSC issued an opinion stating that reorganization must be authorized by the appropriate Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur approved the new staffing pattern and authorized Governor Cerilles to undertake the reorganization. Governor Cerilles appointed employees to the new positions, resulting in the termination of some employees who occupied permanent positions in the old plantilla. The terminated employees filed appeals but no action was taken, so they brought the matter to the CSC Regional Office. The CSC Regional Office invalidated the appointments made by Governor Cerilles for failing to grant preference in appointment to employees previously occupying permanent positions. Governor Cerilles sought reconsideration but her appeal was dismissed by the CSC. The CSC eventually granted her motion for reconsideration but still upheld the invalidation of the appointments. Governor Cerilles filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CSC. She then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging the invalidation of the appointments. The CA upheld the CSC's jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. Governor Cerilles filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. She then filed a petition before the Court, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the execution of the CSC's resolutions. The Court granted the TRO. The issues raised in the petition include the propriety of filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA and the interpretation of the jurisdiction of CSCROs. The Court denied the petition, stating that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43. Another issue raised in the case is whether the CSC has the power to revoke appointments for violating the provisions of RA 6656. The Court found that the CSC had the authority to invalidate the appointments. Finally, the Court interpreted certain provisions of the Civil Service Law on reorganization and removal of personnel, emphasizing that removal must be based on lawful causes and that permanent employees are given preference for appointment to comparable positions in the new staffing pattern.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a valid reorganization was conducted in this case.

2. Whether the transfer of the petitioner to a lower position and the appointment of another employee to the vacant position violated his security of tenure.

3. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has the authority to revoke an appointment and order reinstatement in cases of reorganization;

4. Whether the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga Del Sur was done in good faith.

5. Whether the reorganization of the government of the Municipality of Goa was done in good faith or in order to circumvent the security of tenure of civil service employees.

6. Whether the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was done in good faith or in order to circumvent the security of tenure of civil service employees.

7. Whether the non-reappointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner violates Section 4 of R.A. 6656.

8. Whether the appointment of new employees despite the availability of permanent officers and employees indicates a lack of bona fide reorganization.

9. Whether the position of waterworks supervisor was abolished during the reorganization.

10. Whether the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was conducted in good faith.

11. Whether the termination of qualified incumbents of retained positions and their replacement with either new employees or those previously holding lower positions is a valid cause for removal.

RULING:

1. The Court held that a valid reorganization was conducted in this case. The reorganization was pursued in good faith and in compliance with the procedure set forth in the law. There was no violation of the petitioner's security of tenure as the removal was pursuant to a bona fide reorganization.

2. The Court ruled that the transfer of the petitioner to a lower position and the appointment of another employee to the vacant position did not violate his security of tenure. The law provides that officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern, comparable to their former positions or to positions next lower in rank. In this case, the petitioner was transferred to a position next lower in rank and not removed from service. The appointment of another employee in the vacant position did not violate the petitioner's security of tenure as it was in compliance with the law.

3. In instances of reorganization, the CSC has the authority to revoke an appointment on the ground of bad faith and order the reinstatement of the illegally removed employee. The CSC is not actually directing the appointment of another, but simply ordering the reinstatement of the employee to their former position, as in cases where demotion resulted from the appointment.

4. The reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga Del Sur was found to have been done in bad faith. Good faith is a basic requirement for the validity of any government reorganization. A reorganization done in good faith is aimed at improving efficiency and economy in the bureaucracy, while one done for political reasons or to defeat security of tenure is not in good faith.

5. The reorganization of the government of the Municipality of Goa was deemed to be done in bad faith as it was found to be marred by other considerations in order to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees.

6. The reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was found to be done in bad faith as evidenced by the large number of appointments that violated the rule on preference and non-hiring of new employees, as well as the replacement of the respondents with new employees or those holding lower positions.

7. The non-reappointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner violates Section 4 of R.A. 6656. Officers holding permanent appointments should be given preference for appointment to new comparable positions or positions next lower in rank.

8. The appointment of new employees despite the availability of permanent officers and employees indicates a lack of bona fide reorganization. Section 4 of R.A. 6656 states that no new employees shall be taken until all permanent officers and employees have been appointed.

9. The position of waterworks supervisor was not abolished during the reorganization as it was appointed an officer-in-charge with similar functions.

10. The reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was found to be tainted with bad faith. The termination of qualified incumbents of retained positions and their replacement with either new employees or those previously holding lower positions was deemed to be illegally done. As a result, the employees are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and full backwages from the time of their separation until actual reinstatement. If they have already retired, they shall be awarded the corresponding retirement benefits for the period they were retired.

PRINCIPLES:

• An officer or employee may be validly removed from service pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, which does not violate security of tenure.

• Officers and employees holding permanent appointments in the old staffing pattern shall be given preference for appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern, comparable to their former positions or to positions next lower in rank.

• The appointment authority has a wide latitude in the selection of personnel, subject to review by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC's role is merely to determine whether the appointee possesses the minimum requirements under the law.

• The CSC has the authority to revoke an appointment and order reinstatement in cases of reorganization, specifically when demotion resulted from the appointment and the removal was done in bad faith.

• Good faith is a requirement for a valid government reorganization, which should be aimed at improving efficiency and economy in the bureaucracy and not as a tool to destroy the livelihood of career employees and put political allies in control of the government machinery.

• Reorganization done in bad faith, specifically for political reasons or to defeat security of tenure, is not valid and does not result in the abolition of positions. Security of tenure still applies in cases of invalid reorganization.

• In order to successfully impugn the validity of a reorganization, the aggrieved officer or employee has the burden to prove the existence of bad faith.

• Good faith is presumed in reorganizations.

• An invalid abolition takes place when there is a change of nomenclature of positions or claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.

• The reorganization must be undertaken in the interest of efficiency and austerity, and not to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees.

• Section 4 of R.A. 6656 provides that officers holding permanent appointments should be given preference for appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern.

• No new employees shall be taken until all permanent officers and employees have been appointed, as stated in Section 4 of R.A. 6656.

• Non-reappointment of permanent officers in favor of new employees indicates a lack of bona fide reorganization.

• Positions that were not abolished during reorganization should not be replaced with new employees.

• Reorganization as a guise for illegal removal of career civil service employees is violative of their constitutional right to security of tenure.

• Reorganization must be done in good faith.

• A valid cause for removal must exist in order to terminate permanent employees.