De Guzman v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mario M. De Guzman held a permanent position as Science Research Assistant II at the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI). During a reorganization in December 1987, two of the eight Science Research Assistant II positions were abolished. Petitioner was offered the position of Science Research Assistant I, which he refused, considering it a demotion. Procedural History: Petitioner received a notice of termination effective April 15, 1988. He was later informed that he could be given preference for re-appointment. On September 3, 1989, he was reinstated to his former position as Science Research Assistant II due to the death of an incumbent. Petitioner requested back salaries from April 16, 1988, to September 2, 1989. PNRI denied the request, as did the DOST Reorganization Appeals Board. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) also ruled against him, stating his non-reappointment was due to his refusal of the offered position and that his original position was abolished. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the CSC Resolution No. 787 dated January 7, 1991.
Issue(s)
Whether the abolition of petitioner's position was bona fide. Whether petitioner is entitled to back salaries.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 787 of the Civil Service Commission is reversed and set aside. Petitioner is entitled to his full back salaries from April 16, 1988, to September 2, 1989, and to the difference between his salary as Science Research Assistant II and as Science Research Assistant I from September 2, 1989, up to the time he was appointed as Science Research Assistant II.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the bona fide abolition of petitioner's position: The Court reiterated its ruling in Hon. Secretary Antonio V. Arizabal, Department of Science and Technology, The Director and the Members of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute Reorganization Evaluation Committee, etc. v. Hon. Oscar L. Leviste, etc., et al., which nullified the reorganization of DOST and PNRI. The Court held that an abolition which is not bona fide, but is merely a device to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees, is null and void. The separation of the petitioner, resulting from a prescribed abolition of his office, was deemed illegal. Furthermore, his appointment to the position of Science Research Assistant I was considered an unauthorized demotion. Demotion in office, by assigning an employee to a lower position with a lower rate of compensation, is tantamount to removal if no cause is shown or if it is not part of any disciplinary action, citing Floreza v. Ongpin. Under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656, a victim of a removal in violation of the bona fide rule is entitled to reinstatement or re-appointment to the position from which he was removed. On the entitlement to back salaries: The Court held that when an official or employee was illegally dismissed and his reinstatement has later been ordered, for all legal purposes, he is considered as not having left his office. Therefore, he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office he held, citing Tañada v. Legaspi. Consequently, back salaries may be ordered paid to such an officer or employee, as held in City Mayor of Zamboanga v. Court of Appeals. The petitioner is entitled to his full back salaries from April 16, 1988, to September 2, 1989. Additionally, he is entitled to the difference between his salary as Science Research Assistant II and as Science Research Assistant I from September 2, 1989, up to the time he was appointed to his former position.
Main Doctrine
An abolition of a position which is not bona fide, but is merely a device to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees, is null and void. An employee illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement and back salaries.