Pabu-aya v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Editha G. Pabu-aya was an employee of the Provincial Board of Negros Occidental, initially hired as a casual laborer in 1973 and later appointed as a permanent Utility Worker in 1986. On September 16, 1991, she was appointed as Bookbinder II on a temporary status. On October 16, 1992, the Vice Governor informed her that her temporary appointment as Bookbinder II had expired on September 16, 1992, and she could no longer continue in service. Petitioner acknowledged her unsatisfactory performance and sought renewal. She also appealed her dismissal to the President, which was indorsed to the Provincial Governor. The Governor proposed re-appointment as Utility Worker under specific conditions, which petitioner found unacceptable. Petitioner then withdrew her appointment papers for Utility Worker and appealed the termination of her Bookbinder II position to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Procedural History: The CSC dismissed her appeal, stating that as a temporary employee, she had no security of tenure and could be removed without cause. Her request for reinstatement as Utility Worker was also denied for lack of merit, reiterating that accepting the temporary appointment as Bookbinder II meant she had no security of tenure. The CSC denied her motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied due course and dismissed her petition, affirming the CSC resolutions. The CA held that accepting the temporary appointment waived her tenurial security and that an employee is entitled only to the security of tenure conferred by their appointment papers. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision for allegedly disregarding her right to security of tenure and for holding her guilty of laches.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner's acceptance of a temporary appointment indicated her relinquishment of her permanent position and foreclosed her right to contest her non-reinstatement. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the constitutional right to security of tenure. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the petitioner guilty of laches.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of relinquishment of permanent position and right to contest non-reinstatement: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission that petitioner's acceptance of the temporary appointment as Bookbinder II constituted an abandonment of her former permanent position as Utility Worker. The Court emphasized that factual findings of administrative agencies like the CSC, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court. Petitioner freely took her oath of office for the Bookbinder II position, which was also more beneficial in terms of salary and had the potential for permanent re-appointment, as indicated in a prior letter. The appointment papers clearly stated its temporary nature, and it is presumed she was furnished a copy and had the opportunity to know its terms. The Court cited Dosch vs. National Labor Relations Commission to the effect that an employee has the right to refuse a promotion, and conversely, can accept one voluntarily, thereby being bound by its terms. On the issue of disregarding the constitutional right to security of tenure: The Court held that the termination of petitioner's temporary appointment as Bookbinder II was valid. By accepting the temporary appointment, petitioner implicitly abandoned her permanent position. Temporary appointments, by their nature, are terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power with or without cause, and do not carry security of tenure. Furthermore, her own letter acknowledging unsatisfactory performance suggested valid reasons for non-renewal. The Court also noted that temporary appointments are generally limited to twelve months under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, and her appointment expired after this period. On the issue of laches: The Court found that petitioner failed to appeal the Civil Service Commission's Resolution No. 94-0437 dated January 20, 1994, which dismissed her appeal from the Vice-Governor's memorandum terminating her temporary employment. This resolution became final and executory. Her subsequent appeals and requests for reinstatement were filed after significant delays, thus constituting laches, which bars her from seeking relief.
Main Doctrine
Acceptance of a temporary appointment, even if it results in a demotion or a perceived loss of security of tenure, is a voluntary act that binds the employee to the conditions of the temporary position, and failure to contest the termination of such temporary appointment within a reasonable time may lead to laches.