MUNICIPALITY OF BUTIG, LANAO DEL SUR, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ZAALIKA MANGONDAYA, NAMRAIDA MANGONDAYA, ZAMAR M. ROMATO, MACACUA M. AWAL, AMINOLA B. MACAUYAG, ELIAS …

Municipality of Butig versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur, against the Court of Appeals and thirteen municipal employees who had been dropped from the rolls by the municipal mayor. The employees complained of illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and backwages; the Civil Service Commission and its regional office ruled in their favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Municipality now asks the Supreme Court to reverse. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between dismissal, which is disciplinary and demands due process, and dropping from the rolls for absence without official leave, which is non-disciplinary and may be done without prior notice. It is a favorite of examiners on the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure and on the limits of that guarantee.

Procedural History

The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and payment of backwages before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. XII. The regional office issued a resolution finding the employees with permanent appointments to have been illegally dismissed and ordering their reinstatement with back salaries and other benefits, while holding that those with temporary appointments were entitled only to salaries for actual services rendered. It later denied the Municipality's motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, the Civil Service Commission affirmed in two resolutions, declaring the termination illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages without loss of seniority rights, and directing that the two temporary appointees be paid salaries for actual services rendered and accrued money benefits. Reconsideration was denied.

The Municipality then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43. The appellate court affirmed the challenged resolutions and dismissed the petition, with costs against the Municipality. Hence this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The private respondents were appointees of Abdulrahman Romato, then Municipal Mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur. Except for Ominta Maute and Saida Olama, who held temporary appointments, all of them held permanent appointments as municipal employees, with certificates of appointment issued by the Civil Service Commission.

On 23 November 1993, the Commission on Elections, in an electoral protest decided in favor of Palawan Amatonding, declared Amatonding the duly elected mayor, removing Romato from office. On assuming office, Amatonding issued a memorandum dated 25 December 1993 directing the employees to report for work and to show cause why they should not be removed or their services terminated for failing to report for work beginning 23 December 1993. The employees did not report for work. On 31 January 1994, Amatonding issued individual termination notices dropping them from the rolls effective that date, citing abandonment of office, unauthorized absences from 23 December 1993, and defiance of several notices and memoranda.

Mayor Amatonding was ambushed and killed on 24 June 1994, and Vice Mayor Monabantog Kiram became mayor. The employees filed their complaint for illegal dismissal on 15 December 1994. The Municipality later alleged that the employees were ghost employees who never assumed office and were close relatives of Mayor Romato within the prohibited degree, in violation of the rule against nepotism. The Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals rejected these allegations for lack of proof, but the Supreme Court found that both bodies had overlooked the matter of absence without official leave.

Issues

• Whether or not the private respondent municipal employees were illegally dismissed and thus entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages.
• Whether or not the employees' separation may be sustained as a dropping from the rolls for absence without official leave, which requires no prior notice and hearing.
• Whether or not the employees were denied due process when they were dropped from the rolls.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph 3 of Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides:

No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.

This is the security of tenure invoked by the employees, and the Court measures the dropping from the rolls against it.

Section VI of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993 provides:

Officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and may be dropped from the service without prior notice.

This is the provision the Court holds to be the true legal basis for the separation, in place of the circular mistakenly cited by the Municipality.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of illegal dismissal. The findings of administrative agencies, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to high respect, but here the appellate court acted without rational basis because it overlooked the matter of absence without official leave. The termination notices expressly stated abandonment of office, unauthorized absences, and defiance of notices, yet neither the Commission nor its regional office looked into that ground.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that there was a legal basis for dropping the employees from the rolls, namely Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, and not Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994, which the Municipality had incorrectly invoked. Dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature. It does not result in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from re-employment, and it is without prejudice to re-appointment at the discretion of the appointing authority, subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, in administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek reconsideration. The Municipality sent a memorandum dated 25 December 1993 requiring the employees to report for work and show cause, and another dated 31 January 1994 informing them that they were being dropped from the rolls. The employees had sufficient opportunity to report for duty but neither reported nor responded. On the allegations of nepotism and ghost employment, the Court held that mere allegations in a pleading are not evidence, and that sharing a family name with the appointing authority does not nepotism make.

Doctrine

Security of tenure under the Constitution protects a civil service employee from removal or suspension except for cause provided by law. But dropping from the rolls for absence without official leave for at least thirty days is not a removal or dismissal; it is a non-disciplinary mode of separation that may be effected without prior notice and hearing. The appointing authority has the legal right to drop such an employee from the rolls, and the action carries no forfeiture of benefits and no disqualification from re-employment. Due process in administrative proceedings means an opportunity to be heard, and a return-to-work memorandum that the employee ignores satisfies that opportunity. Finally, allegations of nepotism or ghost employment must be proved by evidence; they cannot rest on the pleadings alone.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision of the Court of Appeals was annulled and set aside, and the employees' separation was sustained as a valid dropping from the rolls, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: dropping from the rolls for absence without official leave is non-disciplinary and requires no prior notice, unlike dismissal which demands cause and hearing. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish dismissal from dropping from the rolls, and to test the rule that allegations of nepotism are not evidence.