Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the employment status of Dr. Pantaleon Hermosisima as Medical Director of the Cebu Portland Cement Company. The Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) sought to have Dr. Hermosisima declared a permanent employee based on a prior court judgment granting permanent status to employees who worked for three months and were hired intentionally for permanent positions. Dr. Hermosisima was appointed to the position of Medical Director on a probational and temporary basis due to his lack of civil service eligibility, with his appointments repeatedly renewed for three-month periods. Procedural History: Following a judgment in CIR Case No. 241-V on April 27, 1951, which granted certain union demands including permanent status for employees working three months and hired for permanent positions, Dr. Hermosisima was appointed Medical Director on June 8, 1953. His appointments were temporary, authorized under Revised Administrative Code Section 682, and renewed periodically. After his last three-month appointment expired on March 20, 1955, it was not renewed, and the position was abolished. The PLASLU union filed a motion in the original case on March 10, 1955, asserting Dr. Hermosisima should be permanent and seeking his reinstatement. The respondent Court of Industrial Relations, through Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, denied this motion, and the Court en banc affirmed the denial. The Petition: This case is a petition for review by certiorari filed by the Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) challenging the order of the Court of Industrial Relations denying their motion for reconsideration. The union argues that Dr. Hermosisima, having worked for more than three months, should be considered a permanent employee under the court's prior judgment. The petition contends that Dr. Hermosisima acquired civil service eligibility under Republic Act No. 1080, which would have entitled him to a permanent appointment. The Supreme Court is asked to review the lower court's factual findings regarding Dr. Hermosisima's eligibility and the conditions of his employment.
Issue(s)
Whether Dr. Pantaleon Hermosisima attained permanent employee status in the Cebu Portland Cement Company under the CIR judgment dated 27 April 1951. Whether Dr. Pantaleon Hermosisima acquired civil service eligibility under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1080.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, denying the petition for review. The Court held that Dr. Hermosisima did not acquire permanent status and that his separation from service was not an illegal dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that Dr. Hermosisima did not attain permanent employee status. While he satisfied the first condition of the CIR judgment (having worked for more than three months), he failed to meet the second and third conditions. The Court explained that he was not hired "intentionally for permanent position" because his lack of civil service eligibility, a requirement for positions in the classified category in a government-owned and controlled corporation like Cebu Portland Cement Company (governed by Civil Service Law under Section 24 of Executive Order No. 399, series of 1950), prevented such an intention from being formed by the appointing authority. His appointments were explicitly temporary, made for three-month periods as authorized by Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. The expiration of these temporary appointments did not constitute dismissal; rather, his incumbency automatically ceased at the designated time, as previously held in Cuadra vs. Cordova. Therefore, his service, despite its duration, was temporary and did not ripen into permanent employment. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Hermosisima did not acquire civil service eligibility under Republic Act No. 1080. Although Section 1 of R.A. No. 1080 declares bar and board examinations as civil service examinations, Section 3 authorizes the Commissioner of Civil Service to promulgate rules for its implementation. Pursuant to this authority, a regulation was issued requiring applicants to file a verified application showing qualification and at least two years of professional practice or related employment. The Court found, based on the factual findings of the respondent Court, that Dr. Hermosisima did not comply with this regulation. Exhibit "D-1," an application purportedly accomplished by him, was not shown to have been duly filed with the Commissioner of Civil Service for accreditation, nor was it subscribed and sworn to, which was an essential requisite. His civil service card (Exhibit "D") only certified him as a registered physician entitled to practice, not as a civil service eligible under R.A. No. 1080. The Court emphasized that these factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon it.
Main Doctrine
An employee hired under a temporary appointment, even if extended beyond three months, does not acquire permanent status if the initial hiring was not intended for a permanent position and the appointment was made temporary due to lack of civil service eligibility, as mandated by law and regulations governing government-owned corporations.