ANITA A. BARBERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FAUSTINO H. PARAGUYA, RESPONDENT.

Barbero versus Paraguya

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Anita A. Barbero, an interpreter of the City Court of Surigao, against Municipal Judge Faustino H. Paraguya of Placer, Surigao del Norte, in his capacity as acting City Judge of Surigao City. She charged him with ignorance of the law, misconduct in office, oppression, and grave abuse of authority arising from his dismissal of her on his very first day in office. The case matters because it fixes a rule every appointing power must remember: civil service employees, whatever their status, enjoy security of tenure and cannot be removed at the mere caprice of the appointing authority.

Procedural History

The complainant first brought her grievance to the Department of Justice, and the Assistant Judicial Superintendent wired the respondent to allow her to report for duty until further orders. The Undersecretary of Justice then wrote the respondent that the dismissal was not valid and ordered him to allow her to return to work. Her verified complaint was referred to the respondent for comment, and he submitted his answer. The matter reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative complaint against a municipal judge, and the Court resolved it on the documentary evidence without a formal investigation.

Facts

Anita Barbero was appointed interpreter by then City Judge Jose L. Gonzales and assumed office on January 4, 1966, under a provisional status. On September 9, 1972, the same judge issued her a new appointment changing her status from provisional to permanent, in view of her having qualified in the General Clerical Examination. That appointment was attested as permanent by the Civil Service Commission on November 23, 1972.

On November 13, 1972, the respondent assumed office as acting City Judge of Surigao. On that first day, he dismissed the complainant, citing the supposed temporary character of her appointment, the Civil Service rules, and the policy of the New Society under martial law.

When the complainant showed him her permanent appointment and asked to be allowed to return to work, he refused, claiming the appointment was void because Judge Gonzales who issued it was no longer in the service when it was attested. He threatened her with more drastic action should she insist. Even after the Assistant Judicial Superintendent and then the Undersecretary of Justice ordered her reinstatement, he refused to accept her, relenting only upon receipt of the letter of the Undersecretary of Justice.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal of the complainant as interpreter of the City Court of Surigao by the respondent judge was legal.
• Whether or not the permanent appointment of the complainant was void from the beginning because it was attested by the Civil Service Commission after the issuing judge had already left the service.
• Whether or not an employee under a provisional appointment may be dismissed at any time with or without cause.

Applicable Provisions

Memorandum Circular Number 35, series of 1966, of the Civil Service Commission provides:

Employment under provisional appointment may only be terminated by this Office by certifying appropriate eligibles, except during an employees' probationary period, or the first six months following his original appointment, when his services maybe terminated by the appointing official for want of capacity or unsatisfactory conduct.

This circular supplies the standard the respondent violated: termination of a provisional employee requires the certification of appropriate eligibles by the Commission, a step he never observed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal was illegal. Employees in the civil service, regardless of their status, are entitled to security of tenure of office and cannot just be removed at the mere caprice of the appointing power.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appointment was not void from the beginning. When it was issued on September 9, 1972, Judge Gonzales was still in the service and clothed with authority to issue it; the later attestation by the Civil Service Commission did not invalidate it.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the claim that a provisional employee may be dismissed anytime with or without cause. Quoting the circular, the Court stressed that before such employment may be terminated, the Civil Service Commission should first certify appropriate eligibles, except during the probationary period. That requirement was not followed. What aggravated the situation was the respondent's continued refusal to accept the complainant even after the Assistant Judicial Superintendent and the Undersecretary of Justice had ordered her return, and his threat of more drastic action. The Court found that the illegal dismissal constituted abuse of authority.

Doctrine

Civil service employees, regardless of status, are entitled to security of tenure and may not be removed at the mere caprice of the appointing power. An appointment is not void from the beginning merely because the Civil Service Commission attests it after the issuing officer has left the service, so long as that officer was in the service and authorized when the appointment was issued. A provisional appointment may be terminated only upon certification of appropriate eligibles by the Commission, except during the probationary period or the first six months following original appointment, when services may be terminated for want of capacity or unsatisfactory conduct. Refusing to obey the lawful orders of superior authorities to reinstate an employee constitutes abuse of authority.

Disposition

The respondent was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that civil service employees, regardless of status, are entitled to security of tenure and cannot be removed at the mere caprice of the appointing power. Examiners use this case to test the limits of dismissing provisional employees and the effect of a belated Civil Service Commission attestation on the validity of an appointment.