Munez v. Jomo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of La Paz, Agusan del Sur, through Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2001, enacted by its Sangguniang Bayan, abolished two of its economic enterprises: the Motor Pool and the Road Construction and Maintenance. This led to the dismissal of permanent employees assigned to these offices, including the twenty-eight private respondents in this case. The Municipal Mayor, Dr. Renato S. Muñez, implemented this abolition. Procedural History: The displaced employees sought intervention from the CSC Caraga Regional Office, requesting reinstatement or benefits. The CSC Regional Office, in an Order dated January 21, 2003, declared the abolition void due to bad faith and ordered the reinstatement of the employees, with back salaries and benefits. The Mayor's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC Regional Office on April 8, 2003. Subsequently, the CSC proper affirmed this decision in a Resolution dated August 26, 2005, dismissing the Mayor's appeal and upholding the reinstatement order, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656. The Petition: Dr. Renato S. Muñez filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking an extension of time to file. The CA granted an initial extension, but the Mayor filed a second motion for extension. The CA, in a Resolution dated February 8, 2006, denied this second motion and dismissed the petition for review as it was filed out of time. The Mayor's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA in its Resolution of April 26, 2006. The present petition before the Supreme Court assails the CA's denial of both the second motion for extension and the motion for reconsideration, arguing grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's second motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, and in denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing his petition for review. Whether the abolition of the Motor Pool and Road Construction and Maintenance offices was done in good faith.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review filed by the petitioner for having been filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the second motion for extension and motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated that procedural rules setting reglementary periods for appeals are generally inviolable and must be strictly complied with. Appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and failure to perfect it within the prescribed period renders the judgment final and executory. The Court may only deviate from this rule in exceptionally meritorious cases. In this instance, the reasons proffered by the petitioner for seeking a second extension – the need to certify as true copies all pages of the attachments and his absence in Palawan for official business preventing him from signing the verification – were deemed insufficient and not compelling. The Court found these excuses to be an unnecessary exaggeration and a flimsy excuse, respectively, which did not warrant relaxation of the rules. Therefore, the CA's denial of the second motion for extension and the subsequent motion for reconsideration was a valid exercise of discretion, not constituting grave abuse thereof. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. On the substantive issue of the abolition of offices (impliedly affirmed by the dismissal of the petition): Although the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, it implicitly affirmed the findings of the CSC and CA regarding the abolition of offices. The CSC had found that the abolition of the Motor Pool and Road Construction and Maintenance offices was made in bad faith, serving as a mere disguise for the illegal removal of permanent employees, thereby violating their security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6656. The CSC's findings were based on evidence such as the hiring of casual employees performing the same functions, the significant expenditure on job orders and contracts of services, and the creation of new positions, all of which contradicted the stated justifications of economy and efficiency. The CSC concluded that the abolition was a transgression of the employees' security of tenure.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of positions in government service must be done in good faith and not as a mere subterfuge to remove employees, thereby violating their security of tenure. Procedural rules regarding reglementary periods for appeals are generally inviolable and must be strictly complied with.