PEDRO C. LAMEYRA, PETITIONER, VS. MAYOR GEORGE S. PANGILINAN, RESPONDENT.

Lameyra versus Pangilinan

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Pedro Lameyra against Mayor George Pangilinan of Famy, Laguna. Lameyra, a janitor and messenger in the municipal hall, was dropped from the rolls of employees by the new mayor on grounds of insubordination and absence without official leave. He cries unlawful termination, denial of due process, and political harassment. The case matters because it tests the tension between two things a Bar candidate must hold together: the summary power of government to drop an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave, and the constitutional guarantee of due process that still clings to that employee when the very fact of his absence is disputed.

Procedural History

Lameyra filed a notice of appeal with the Civil Service Commission. The Commission, in a resolution dated February 6, 1996, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the mayor's action of dropping him from the roll of employees for absence without leave. Lameyra moved for reconsideration, attaching sworn statements that he had in fact been reporting for work. The Commission denied the motion in a resolution dated January 28, 1997. Lameyra then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that the Commission correctly ruled on the issues, that there was no denial of due process because Lameyra had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration, and that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Lameyra came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45, assigning errors of law and grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts.

Facts

Pedro Lameyra was appointed janitor and messenger in the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna on February 2, 1988 under temporary status. On January 1, 1989, then Mayor Melquiadez Acomular gave him a permanent appointment to the same position. Mayor Acomular was later defeated in the mayoralty race by George Pangilinan.

On August 21, 1995, Lameyra received a letter from the new mayor informing him that he was dropped from the roll of employees of the local government unit pursuant to Civil Service Memorandum Circular Number 12, Series of 1994, for insubordination and absence without official leave. The mayor's position was that Lameyra had failed to comply with a May 31, 1995 memorandum requiring employees to accomplish the daily time log book, that he had not reported for work since July 6, 1995, and that a personnel officer, Benito Vicencio, had certified this fact. The mayor added that Lameyra had been repeatedly late, had been warned, and had even been charged with falsification of a public document before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.

Lameyra insisted he was a permanent employee terminated without written notice of the charges and without investigation and hearing, in violation of his security of tenure and due process, and that the act was political vengeance because he had publicly voted for the mayor's rival. In his motion for reconsideration before the Commission, he claimed that upon the advice of the Civil Service regional office he had reported for work at the office of Vice Mayor Constancio Fernandez, because the personnel officer, Vicencio, would not let him sign the log book. He attached the sworn statement of the Vice Mayor, that of a co-employee, and his own, all controverting the certification of absence. The Commission refused to give these weight, and the Court of Appeals agreed.

Issues

• Whether or not the dropping of Lameyra from the rolls without prior notice violated his right to due process, considering that he disputed the very fact of his absence without approved leave.
• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the sworn statements submitted with his motion for reconsideration.
• Whether or not the certification of the personnel officer constituted substantial evidence to support the finding of absence without official leave.

Applicable Provisions

Civil Service Memorandum Circular Number 12, Series of 1994 provides:

2.1 Absence without approved leave. a. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed of his separation from the service not later than five (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing in his 201 files.

This is the very provision the mayor invoked, and it is the provision the Court construes: it indeed excuses prior notice, but only where the fact of continuous absence without approved leave is established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found merit in the petition. It read the circular plainly: no prior notice is required to drop from the rolls an employee who has been continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days. But the Court stressed that this summary remedy rests entirely on the fact of absence, and Lameyra contested that he was absent at all. He claimed he reported for work but was prevented from signing the log book by the very officer who certified that he did not report. The Court noted that Lameyra's allegation that he was never furnished a copy of the mayor's comment, and secured one only after receiving the Commission's resolution, was raised even in the Court of Appeals and was never disputed by the mayor. Hence the first real opportunity Lameyra had to contest the evidence against him was his motion for reconsideration.

On the second issue, the Court held that the three sworn statements annexed to that motion directly controverted the certification of absence and could not be treated as new evidence belatedly submitted, precisely because there had been no notice and hearing when he was dropped from the rolls. The Court observed that one of the affiants was Vice Mayor Fernandez, whose acts as a public official enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, and that it would comply with due process to give his statement due consideration. This, the Court said, was in consonance with the respondent's own theory that Lameyra was afforded his right to be heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

On the third issue, the Court acknowledged the settled doctrine that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected and that the Court should not weigh the evidence anew. But it held that such findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and it was not convinced that the personnel officer's certification amounted to substantial evidence in light of Lameyra's submission that the same officer prevented him from signing the log book, that he had been replaced by one Leynes in July 1995, and that he had been asked to submit his resignation, which he refused. In equity, and in proper compliance with due process, Lameyra deserved a last full opportunity to prove that his termination was illegal.

Doctrine

An employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice under the Civil Service circular. That summary power, however, presupposes the fact of absence. Where the employee disputes that he was ever absent, due process requires that he be given a genuine opportunity to controvert the certification of absence, and sworn statements submitted at the first real opportunity to be heard must be considered rather than rejected as new evidence. Administrative findings of fact are respected only when supported by substantial evidence; a bare certification of absence, contradicted by a public officer's sworn statement and by circumstances suggesting the employee was prevented from recording his attendance, does not meet that standard.

Disposition

Lameyra won. The Court reversed and set aside the judgment appealed from and remanded the case to the Civil Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance with the tenor of the decision.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that absence without leave may be punished without prior notice, but only if the absence is true, for due process still demands a real chance to be heard when the fact of absence is contested. Examiners like to use this case on the requisites of dropping an employee from the rolls and on the substantial evidence standard in administrative findings.