Gementiza v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gelacio P. Gementiza was elected Mayor of Tagum, Davao del Norte, defeating the incumbent Mayor Herminigildo Baloyo. The respondents were appointees of the former Mayor, holding positions in the unclassified service, some as permanent laborers under Section 5(g) of R.A. 2260, as amended, and others with temporary appointments. Shortly after petitioner's induction into office, the respondents received letters of termination citing reasons such as 'lack of work and project' or 'lack of vehicle and work,' with termination effective upon receipt or shortly thereafter. Procedural History: Respondents filed separate actions for mandamus and damages with the Court of First Instance of Davao, seeking reinstatement, back salaries, attorney's fees, and damages. The lower court dismissed most of the cases, holding the termination of temporary employees as legal and proper, but ordered the reinstatement of permanent employees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of cases for temporary employees but ordered the reinstatement of permanent employees with back salaries and attorney's fees. Petitioner Mayor Gementiza then filed the instant petition for review. The Petition: Petitioner questioned the Court of Appeals' decision ordering the reinstatement of the respondents, arguing that the appointments of Rogelio Bucol and Nicolas Punting were temporary, that their dismissal was lawful, and that the order for reinstatement with back wages and attorney's fees was erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the respondents, who held permanent appointments as laborers, was lawful. Whether the appointments of Rogelio Bucol and Nicolas Punting were temporary or permanent. Whether the alleged reduction in force was effected in good faith and in accordance with law and Civil Service Rules. Whether the respondents are entitled to reinstatement with back salaries and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordering the reinstatement of the respondents with back salaries for five (5) years and attorney's fees. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful and that petitioner Mayor Gementiza, along with the Municipality of Tagum, was jointly and severally liable for the payment of back salaries, attorney's fees, and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of the dismissal: The Court held that the dismissal of the respondents was without basis in fact and in law. While a reduction in force may be effected for economy, it must be done in accordance with specific Civil Service Rules, including a 30-day written notice to affected employees and submission of reports to the Commissioner of Civil Service. The evidence showed that these procedures were not followed, with terminations being effective immediately or within a few days of receipt of notice. The Court found that the presumption of regularity of official duty was destroyed by the clear violation of these rules. On the nature of appointments of Bucol and Punting: The Court found the petitioner's contention that the appointments of Bucol and Punting were temporary to be untenable. Although the word 'temporary' appeared on Bucol's appointment paper, it was considered an inadvertence. Both appointments were attested under Section 5(g) of R.A. 2260, as amended by R.A. 6040, which classified permanent laborers, skilled or unskilled, as part of the non-competitive service. The Court reiterated that appointees to unclassified positions are also protected by the Civil Service Law. On the alleged reduction in force and good faith: The Court found that the respondents' evidence belied the petitioner's alleged policy of economy. During the period of termination, the petitioner extended numerous new appointments, including replacements for some of the dismissed respondents. Furthermore, a comparison of the budgets and plantilla of personnel for fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 revealed an increase in the number of employees in the Office of the Mayor, directly contradicting the claim of a reduction in force. This demonstrated bad faith on the part of the petitioner. On entitlement to reinstatement, back salaries, and attorney's fees: Based on the finding of unlawful dismissal and bad faith, the Court affirmed the respondents' entitlement to reinstatement. Following established jurisprudence, reinstated employees are considered as not having left their office. The Court ordered back salaries at the rates last received for a period of five years, without qualification or deduction, and P500.00 attorney's fees for each respondent. The petitioner, Mayor Gementiza, was held jointly and severally liable with the Municipality of Tagum for these payments, as the acts were committed in his official capacity and he acted outside the scope of his legal authority.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of permanent laborers without adherence to the procedural requirements of the Civil Service Rules, particularly the 30-day notice and the proper procedure for reduction in force, constitutes unlawful dismissal. Furthermore, the alleged 'reduction in force' for reasons of economy is belied by the issuance of new appointments and an increase in personnel, indicating bad faith on the part of the appointing official.