Daza v. Lugo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Former Governor Madeleine P. Mendoza-Ong issued an appointment dated March 7, 2001, in favor of respondent Ronan P. Lugo as Sanitation Inspector I under permanent status, which was approved by the CSC Provincial Field Office on March 20, 2001. Procedural History: On August 10, 2001, petitioner Raul A. Daza, the newly elected Governor, issued Memorandum No. 352-01 directing Department Heads to evaluate probationary employees, including respondent, to determine their qualification for permanent status. On September 5, 2001, petitioner issued a Memorandum terminating respondent's probationary service for unsatisfactory conduct, effective September 6, 2001. Respondent appealed to the CSC Regional Officer VIII (CSCRO VIII), which declared the termination order "NOT IN ORDER" on January 8, 2002, ordering respondent's reinstatement with back salaries. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The CSC, in Resolution No. 030006 dated January 7, 2003, reversed the CSCRO VIII order and found the termination in order. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in its Decision dated December 20, 2004, reversed the CSC Resolution and reinstated the CSCRO VIII Order, finding the termination without just cause and a denial of due process. The CA held that the termination was based on respondent's failure to submit a Performance Evaluation Report, which was the responsibility of his immediate supervisor, not respondent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging that the CA erred in ruling that respondent was denied due process and in applying Miranda v. Carreon.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was denied due process and terminated without just cause. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the case of Miranda v. Carreon to the present case, and whether the reinstatement of respondent with backwages was warranted.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76028 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process and just cause for termination: The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that respondent's services were terminated without just cause and that he was denied due process. The Court reiterated that under Section 26, par. 1, Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a probationer may be dropped from the service for unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity, provided such action is appealable to the Commission. In this case, the termination was based on "unsatisfactory conduct." However, the Court found that the basis for this alleged unsatisfactory conduct was the failure to submit a Performance Evaluation Report (PER). Petitioner's Memorandum No. 352-01 clearly directed "Office/Department Heads/OICs" as immediate supervisors to evaluate probationary employees and submit a report. The Court agreed with the CA that it was the immediate supervisor's duty to evaluate and submit the PER, not the employee's. Therefore, the alleged "unsatisfactory conduct" was without basis, as there was no submitted report detailing such conduct. The Court emphasized that even if the employee were allowed to rate himself, the supervisor's rating is controlling, and the duty to evaluate belongs to the supervisor. Furthermore, Civil Service Rules require that a notice of termination for unsatisfactory conduct must be supported by at least a Performance Evaluation Report, a report of the immediate supervisor on critical incidents, or other valid documents. The notice of termination issued to respondent was not supported by any such document, thus constituting a substantial failure to comply with the rules and a denial of due process. The Court found no other documents presented to show that respondent's termination was justified. On the application of Miranda v. Carreon and the propriety of reinstatement: The Court found that while Miranda v. Carreon may not be on all fours with the present case, its application did not affect the finding that respondent's services were terminated without just cause. The cited case involved the termination of probationary employees after a shorter probationary period than prescribed, leading to their reinstatement with backwages. The principle that probationary employees are entitled to due process and termination must be for just cause, as established in Miranda, remains relevant. Therefore, the reinstatement of respondent to his former position with payment of backwages and other monetary benefits was warranted.
Main Doctrine
The termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory conduct requires a basis, such as a Performance Evaluation Report or other valid documents, and adherence to due process. A mere failure to submit a performance evaluation report by the employee's supervisor cannot be attributed to the employee as a ground for termination.