RODOLFO R. PALMERA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner started working in the government in 1953 and has held
various positions in the Ministry of Public Works. On October 1, 1982, upon the merger of the Ministry of Public
Works and the Ministry of Public Highways, he was appointed Assistant Regional
Director of the National Capital Region (NCR).

On April 24, 1986, Palmera was directed by then DPWH Minister
Rogaciano M. Mercado to turn over his office to Pacifico Mendoza (who had been
assigned thereat as OIC) and to report to the MPWH Central Office for his new
assignment.

On June 26, 1987, then DPWH Secretary Vicente R. Jayme charged
Palmera, along with several others, with grave misconduct and dishonesty in two
administrative cases denominated as Adm. Case Nos. 87-28 and 87-29. Thereafter, all the respondents were placed
under 90-day preventive suspension, which was lifted on November 16, 1987.

On December 1, 1987, another Memorandum was issued by then DPWH
Secretary J. Nery Ferrer charging Palmera, together with other respondents,
with grave misconduct and dishonesty. In this Adm. Case No. 87-44, Palmera was again placed under preventive
suspension.

All of the above-mentioned administrative cases were based on the
recommendation of the DPWH Fact-Finding Committee in an investigation of
anomalies in the flood control and related projects in Metro Manila. Its findings were embodied in a number of
separate complaints and informations filed with the Office of the Tanodbayan
(Ombudsman) and the Sandiganbayan, for malversation, estafa, falsification and
violations of R.A. No. 3019, and P.D. 1759.

On May 19, 1988, Palmera’s second preventive suspension was
lifted but he was no longer ordered reinstated.

The petitioner alleges that it was while he was still under
preventive suspension that he learned of Pacifico Mendoza’s appointment to his
position. Palmera said he was
repeatedly assured he would be appointed to another position but no such
appointment was ever extended him.

Instead, the DPWH Assistant Secretary for Legal Services
recommended that Palmera be hired on a contractual basis for the period from
January 1 to December 31, 1987, to provide a legal basis for the payment of his
salaries. After December 31, 1987,
management would decide whether or not to renew the contract. The petitioner signed the contract but it
was never renewed.

On November 21, 1991, Palmera filed with respondent Civil Service
Commission a letter-appeal for his reinstatement with full back wages and
without loss of seniority rights. He
also prayed for the nullification of the appointment of Mendoza as Assistant
Regional Director.

The DPWH commented on the letter-appeal thus:

His acceptance of a contractual appointment as Technical Assistant
to the Secretary on January 2, 1987 is an indication of his relinquishment of
his former position as Asst. Regional Director. After the expiration of the Contract of Employment (contractual),
no other appointment was issued to Mr. Palmera.

In its Resolution No. 92-944 dated July 23, 1992, the Commission
found the contract of employment issued to Palmera to be violative of the Civil
Service Law and Rules. Nevertheless, it
dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground of laches. According to the Commission, Palmera failed to contest the
issuance of the contract and his non-reinstatement within a reasonable period,
thus rendering the appeal moot and academic.

On August 28, 1992, Palmera filed a motion for reconsideration of
the resolution. He also submitted the
affidavit of a certain Amado Dungca, who claimed to be an employee of then
Executive Secretary Joker P. Arroyo. Dungca declared that Secretary Arroyo had on several occasions assured
Palmera that he would make representations with DPWH officials for his
reinstatement or his appointment to a position of equivalent or higher rank.

The Commission rejected Dungca’s affidavit as mere hearsay and
denied the motion for lack of merit in its Resolution No. 93-944 dated March
12, 1993.

In this petition to annul the resolution, it is alleged that the
respondent Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion:

1. In ruling that
petitioner’s acceptance of a contractual appointment was an indication of his
relinquishment of his position as Assistant Regional Director and foreclosed
his right to contest his non-reinstatement;

2. In holding that petitioner is guilty of
laches; and

3. In arbitrarily disregarding constitutional
right of petitioner to security of tenure.

It is not disputed that the petitioner has the constitutional right
to security of tenure. P.D. 807
specifically includes the position of Assistant Regional Director in the Career
Executive Service. Thee career service
is characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as
far as practicable by competitive examination, or based on highly technical qualifications;
(2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of
tenure.

Security of tenure means that no officer or employee in the Civil
Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and
after due process. Together with the
merit and fitness rule, it is a basic feature of the civil service system.

The public respondent contends that by accepting the contract and
assuming the temporary position of Technical Assistant to the Secretary, the
petitioner effectively relinquished his position as Assistant Regional Director
and abided by the terms of the contract, including the limitation of its
duration. When he accepted his
temporary appointment, he abandoned his right to security of tenure conformably
to the rulings of this Court, as in Romualdez v. Civil Service Commission:^[1]

(W)hen he accepted this temporary appointment, he was thereby
effectively divested of security of tenure. A temporary appointment does not give the appointee any definite tenure
of office but makes it dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power.

The above-cited case is not on all fours with the present
case. The circumstances surrounding the
herein petitioner’s acceptance of the temporary appointment are different from
those in Romualdez. In the latter case,
Romualdez applied for the temporary appointment in exchange for his permanent
position and he acted on his own volition, with full knowledge of the
consequences of his act.

Palmera had no intention to abandon his permanent position and
his security of tenure therein. The
petitioner had been working in the government for about 34 years. It cannot be reasonably supposed that by
signing the contract, he was knowingly relinquishing his permanent post and all
his concomitant rights, including his accrued leave benefits. Furthermore, the petitioner was already
getting on in years and could not afford to face an uncertain future without a
regular and steady income.

The memorandum issued by the Legal Officer of the DPWH explains
the rationale for the execution of the contract of services thus:

I strongly recommend that Mr. Palmera be given a contractual
appointment covering the period from January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1987, to
provide legal basis for payment of salaries for services rendered or during the
period that he has been reporting for duty. After December 31, 1987, management will decide whether or not to
renew his contract. (Annex
“D” to the Petition; Rollo p. 41; emphasis supplied)

It can be inferred from this statement that Palmera did not seek
to be appointed as Technical Assistant to the Secretary. He was not informed of the real objective of
contract. He was made to understand
that the contract was merely for the sake of formality, to give some legal
basis for his compensation for 1987.

The public respondents did not categorically deny the
petitioner’s allegation that he returned to work immediately after the lifting
of his first preventive suspension. Such conduct was definitely inconsistent with the imputation that he
intended to surrender his permanent office. In the old but still valid case of Santiago v. Agustin,^[2]
this Court said:

A public office may become vacant by abandonment. In order to constitute abandonment of
office, it must be total and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an
absolute relinquishment. Temporary
absence is not sufficient. There
must be an intention, actual or imputed to abandon the office. (Emphasis supplied)

The Commission itself has held that the contract of service
entered into by the petitioner and DPWH officials was null and void for being
contrary to law and public policy.

A void or inexistent contract is one which has no force and
effect from the very beginning, as if it had never been entered into, and which
cannot be validated either by time or by ratification. Hence, the subject contract cannot be used
as basis for the claim that the petitioner abandoned his post as Assistant
Regional Director.

The public respondents further contend that the petitioner is
guilty of laches because he sought to implement the order dated November 16,
1987, only on November 18, 1991, or more than 4 years later. Consequently, he is deemed to have forfeited
any remedy to which he may have been entitled under the law.

The reasonableness of the period within which a claim for
reinstatement may be filed is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is no absolute rule on what
constitutes laches or staleness of demand, which is to be determined according
to the particular circumstances of each case.

In the instant case, the petitioner’s inaction was due to his
reliance on the assurances made to him that he would be appointed to another
position. It is not disputed that he
continued reporting for work in the Office of the Secretary even after learning
that somebody else had been appointed to replace him. Palmera could not have done so unless he was assured of his
reappointment. Such assurances were
obviously made in recognition of the petitioner’s right to reinstatement upon
the lifting of his preventive suspension.

These circumstances justify the application in this case of the
following ruling laid down in Cristobal v. Melchor:^[3]

The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle applied to promote
but never to defeat justice. Thus,
where laches is invoked against a plaintiff by reason of the latter’s failure
to come to court within the statutory period provided in the law, the
doctrine of laches will not be taken against him where the defendant is shown
to have promised from time to time to grant the relief sought for. Again, We have jurisprudence that where a
defendant or those claiming under him recognized or directly or impliedly
acknowledged existence of the right asserted by a plaintiff, such recognition
may be invoked as a valid excuse for a plaintiff’s delay in seeking to enforce
such right. In brief, it is indeed
the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided
or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when
to do so, manifest wrong and injustice would result. (Emphasis supplied)

In that case, the petitioner took nine years before filing suit
for his reinstatement, also because of repeated assurances of his
reappointment, which never materialized.

It should also be noted that laches is not concerned merely with
lapse of time, unlike prescription. While the latter deals with the fact of delay, laches deals with the
effect of unreasonable delay. To
constitute laches, it is required that (1) the complainant must have knowledge
of the conduct of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, and (2) he must
have been afforded an opportunity to institute suit. The first requirement is lacking in this case. There was no formal communication to the
petitioner that he had already been dismissed from the service. The contract cannot be considered a notice
of dismissal because it was null and void and therefore produced no legal
effect.

Section 24 (d) of P.D. 807 provides:

Any person who has been permanently appointed to a position in the
career service and who has, through no delinquency or misconduct, been
separated therefrom may be reinstated to a position in the same level for which
he is qualified.

It follows that the petitioner should be immediately reinstated
to his former position or appointed to another position of equivalent rank and
compensation. However, in view of his
pending cases before the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan, back salaries may not
be paid to him at this time and until he is absolved of all the administrative
and criminal charges against him.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
petitioner’s dimissal from the service to be illegal and ordering his immediate
reinstatment to his former position or his appointment to another position of
equivalent rank, with payment of back wages only if and when he is exonerated
of the administrative and criminal charges filed against him. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., in the result.

Bellosillo, J., on official
leave.

^[1]
197 SCRA 168.

^[2]
46 Phil. 14.

^[3]
78 SCRA at 184-185.