Cerilles v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Republic Act No. 8973 led to a significant reduction in the Internal Revenue Allotment for the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, prompting Governor Aurora E. Cerilles to initiate a reorganization of the provincial government. This reorganization involved creating a new staffing pattern with fewer positions. As a consequence, numerous permanent employees, including herein respondents, were terminated from their positions. The respondents alleged that their terminations were without valid cause and that they were not given preference for appointment to the new positions, despite their long service. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IX (CSCRO) invalidated ninety-six (96) appointments made by Governor Cerilles during the reorganization, finding violations of Republic Act No. 6656, which mandates preference for existing permanent employees. The CSCRO also ordered the reinstatement of the respondents who had appealed their termination to the CSCRO after Governor Cerilles failed to act on their appeals. Governor Cerilles sought reconsideration, which was initially dismissed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) but later reinstated and then dismissed again. Further reconsideration was denied by the CSC. Aggrieved, Governor Cerilles filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC's decision, albeit noting that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy. The CA's resolution was subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Governor Cerilles filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. The petition raised several issues, including the propriety of the certiorari petition filed with the CA, the alleged misapplication of laws regarding the CSC's power to approve/disapprove appointments and the procedure for appeals during reorganization, and the CA's interpretation of the CSCRO's jurisdiction. Governor Cerilles argued that the CSC lacked the authority to invalidate appointments made during a reorganization and that the respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not first appealing to her as the appointing authority. The core of the petition questioned whether the reorganization was conducted in good faith and whether the CSC could revoke appointments made in violation of RA 6656.
Issue(s)
Whether Governor Cerilles correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. Whether the CA misapplied Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 807 regarding the CSC's power to approve/disapprove appointments and the recourse of aggrieved applicants, and whether the CA deliberately misapplied Section 7 of RA 6656 to evade discussion on the validity of the appointments. Whether the CA misinterpreted the jurisdiction of CSCROs under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99. Whether the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was tainted with bad faith, and the consequences of such bad faith.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued on March 17, 2009, is LIFTED. Resolution No. 031239 dated December 10, 2003, issued by the Civil Service Commission is ordered executed without delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA: The Court held that Governor Cerilles incorrectly availed of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65. The established rule is that certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was the proper and available mode of appeal from the CSC resolutions, as Rule 43 specifically applies to appeals from resolutions issued by the CSC. The Court reiterated that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not a matter of right and requires strict observance of procedural rules. Governor Cerilles' failure to abide by these elementary requirements was inexcusable, and her invocation of "grave abuse of discretion" did not justify bypassing the available appeal route. On the non-observance of procedure under Sections 7 and 8 of RA 6656 vis-à-vis the Power of Appointment and the CSC's authority to invalidate appointments: The Court disagreed with Governor Cerilles' claim that the CSCRO erred in taking cognizance of the respondents' appeals. While RA 6656 mandates that appeals should first be filed with the appointing authority, the records showed that respondents did, in fact, file letters of appeal with Governor Cerilles. However, these appeals were not acted upon. The CA found that respondents' subsequent elevation of the matter to the CSCRO was justified because of the appointing authority's inaction. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be applied with unreasonable rigidity if substantial rights are marginalized, and requiring respondents to await an indefinite decision from the appointing authority would be unjust and could be used to circumvent appeal opportunities. The CSC is vested with jurisdiction to review decisions of appointing authorities, especially when the latter fails to act. The Court clarified that while appointment is generally a discretionary act, the CSC's power to review appointments is not limited to merely ascertaining minimum qualifications, especially in cases of reorganization. Citing Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission and Luego v. Civil Service Commission, the Court acknowledged that the CSC cannot direct the appointment of its own choice or review appointments based on comparative qualifications. However, in the context of reorganization, the CSC can revoke an appointment if it finds that the removal of an employee was done in bad faith and in violation of RA 6656. This is not an encroachment on the appointing authority's discretion but rather an order for the reinstatement of an illegally removed employee, thereby upholding the constitutional right to security of tenure. The CSC's role is to safeguard this right during reorganizations. On RA 6656 vis-à-vis the Power of Appointment and the CSC's authority to invalidate appointments: The Court clarified that while appointment is generally a discretionary act, the CSC's power to review appointments is not limited to merely ascertaining minimum qualifications, especially in cases of reorganization. Citing Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission and Luego v. Civil Service Commission, the Court acknowledged that the CSC cannot direct the appointment of its own choice or review appointments based on comparative qualifications. However, in the context of reorganization, the CSC can revoke an appointment if it finds that the removal of an employee was done in bad faith and in violation of RA 6656. This is not an encroachment on the appointing authority's discretion but rather an order for the reinstatement of an illegally removed employee, thereby upholding the constitutional right to security of tenure. The CSC's role is to safeguard this right during reorganizations. On whether the reorganization was tainted with bad faith and the consequences of bad faith: The Court ruled in the negative, finding that the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was tainted with bad faith. This determination was based on several factors: (1) the astounding number of ninety-six (96) appointments found to be violative of RA 6656, indicating a systematic circumvention of security of tenure; (2) the admission by Governor Cerilles that new employees were hired after the reorganization, replacing permanent employees or those holding lower positions, which violates Sections 2 and 4 of RA 6656; and (3) the fact that the positions of the respondents were not abolished, yet they were terminated and replaced, with no evidence of demotion to lesser positions. These circumstances, taken together, strongly indicated that the reorganization was not solely for economy or efficiency but was a means to circumvent the security of tenure of affected employees, aligning with the Court's findings in cases like Larin v. Executive Secretary and Pan v. Peña. Given that the reorganization was found to be in bad faith, the Court concluded that the respondents were illegally terminated. Following established jurisprudence, respondents are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from the time of their separation until actual reinstatement. If they have compulsorily retired, they are entitled to corresponding retirement benefits.
Main Doctrine
A reorganization undertaken in bad faith, particularly when it results in the termination of permanent employees without valid cause and in violation of the preference for appointment mandated by RA 6656, is void. The Civil Service Commission has the authority to invalidate appointments made in such circumstances and order the reinstatement of illegally dismissed employees.