Adiong v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 6, 1994, Mayor Sultan Serad A. Batua issued a permanent appointment to Nasiba A. Nuska as Municipal Local Civil Registrar, which was approved by the Civil Service Commission. Subsequently, on June 30, 1995, the new Mayor, Lacsasa M. Adiong, issued a memorandum terminating the services of municipal employees. This was clarified on July 1, 1995, to apply only to temporary or casual workers, requiring those with permanent appointments to submit their credentials. Due to respondent Nuska's alleged failure to submit her appointment papers and make a courtesy call, Mayor Adiong terminated her services and appointed a replacement. Procedural History: Respondent Nuska sought reinstatement and back salaries on August 27, 1995. After Mayor Adiong failed to act on her request, Nuska appealed to the Civil Service Commission on March 11, 1996. The Civil Service Commission, in Resolution No. 970688 dated January 28, 1997, found the termination not in order and directed reinstatement with back salaries. Mayor Adiong's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 11, 1997. Subsequently, Adiong filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition and affirmed the Civil Service Commission's resolution on September 15, 1998. A motion for reconsideration filed by Adiong was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 18, 1998. The Petition: Petitioner Lacsasa M. Adiong seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petition raises issues concerning the propriety of respondent Nuska's termination, whether Adiong was denied due process before the Civil Service Commission, and if an administrative case against Nuska validated her termination. The core arguments revolve around whether the stated reasons for termination constituted just cause and whether due process was afforded to respondent Nuska.
Issue(s)
Whether the termination of respondent Nuska's employment was proper and whether she was denied due process. Whether the administrative case against Nuska validated her prior termination. Whether the presumption of regularity in appointment and performance of official duty applies in this case.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals and the resolution denying reconsideration thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of termination and due process: The Constitution and civil service rules mandate that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and no civil service employee shall be removed except for cause provided by law and after due process. Respondent Nuska, holding a permanent appointment, enjoyed security of tenure. The reasons cited by petitioner Adiong for termination—failure to make a courtesy call, failure to submit appointment papers, and abandonment—were found insufficient. Failure to make a courtesy call is not an offense. Failure to submit appointment papers, without prior notice or reminder, is not a ground for outright dismissal. The alleged abandonment was negated by Nuska's letter asserting her intention to return to work and questioning the legality of her termination, indicating an involuntary absence rather than an intent to relinquish her position. Furthermore, Nuska was not afforded due process, as she was not given an opportunity to explain her side regarding the submission of her appointment papers, nor did Mayor Adiong act on her letter requesting reinstatement. The termination was thus illegal for failure to comply with the requirements of due process and for lack of just cause. On the administrative case against Nuska: The administrative case filed against respondent Nuska for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which was initiated on May 14, 1999, could not validate her termination that occurred in 1995. The Court found this to be an afterthought, as the evidence for the administrative case was gathered only after her termination. Until a final determination of guilt in the administrative case, Nuska could not suffer the penalty of termination, especially when the initial termination was already deemed illegal and violative of due process. On the presumption of regularity: The presumption that a public official was regularly appointed and that official duty has been regularly performed does not apply when the very act of termination is being questioned for illegality.
Main Doctrine
The termination of a civil service employee with a permanent appointment without just cause and without affording due process is illegal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and back salaries, subject to limitations prescribed by jurisprudence.