EDGARDO DYTIAPCO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF BROADCAST SERVICES, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for review seeks to annul and set aside the
resolutions of respondent Civil Service Commission dated June 28, 1989 and
November 27, 1989 dismissing the appeal of petitioner Edgardo Dytiapco to be
reinstated in the government service on the ground that he had already received
his separation and terminal leave benefits.

It appears from the records that on July 28, 1977, petitioner, a
Professional Career Service Eligible, was permanently appointed Junior
Newscaster in the Bureau of Broadcast Services (BBS). Thereafter, he was promoted Senior Newscaster on February 16,
1979^[1]
and sent to Anaheim, California on September 1987 as representative of the
Bureau of Broadcast in the National Association of Broadcaster Convention.

Meanwhile, Executive Order No. 297 reorganizing the Office of the
Press Secretary including the Bureau of Broadcast took effect on July 25,
1987.

On December 28, 1987, petitioner received a letter from the Press
Secretary “That due to limited number of positions in the approved new
staffing pattern,” his “services shall be considered only until
January 31, 1988.^[2]

Petitioner immediately appealed his
dismissal to the Press Secretary and protested the adverse rating given him by
the Evaluation Committee formed to effect the reorganization of the Bureau of
Broadcast Services.^[3]
However, pending the outcome of his appeal to the Press Secretary and finding
himself in dire financial straits, petitioner filed a claim for separation and
terminal leave benefits and on May 5, 1988 received from the Bureau of
Broadcast the sums of P26,779.72 and P19,028.86 as separation and terminal
leave pay.^[4]

On May 12, 1988 or seven days after receiving his separation and
terminal leave benefits, petitioner wrote respondent Civil Service Commission
appealing for his reinstatement on the ground that his termination was without
a valid cause as he is a Civil Service eligible holding a permanent
appointment.^[5]

On June 28, 1980, respondent Civil Service Commission rendered
its disputed resolution, pertinent portions of which, We quote:

“In a conference held on May 17, 1989, the BBS Director
informed the Commission, through Division III, Task Force on Reorganization
Appeals, that appellants have already claimed their separation and terminal
leave benefits on various dates in 1988 immediately after the reorganization of
the Bureau took effect, and such was shown by the various documents furnished
to the Commission.

“In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of an earlier
decision made on similar case (CSC Case No. 234, Teofilo Pa-alan, Promulgated
on April 21, 1989), the Commission hereby dismisses the appeal of Edgardo
Dytiapco, . . . for lack of merit.”^[6]

His Petition for Reconsideration having been denied by the Civil
Service Commission in its resolution of November 27, 1989, petitioner
instituted this Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Civil Service Commission in ruling that receipt
of his separation and terminal leave pay as fatal to his appeal for
reinstatement.^[7]

The petition is impressed with merit.

Petitioner never  abandoned
his appeal for reinstatement when he accepted separation pay and terminal leave
benefits. In fact as early as December
22, 1987, petitioner was protesting respondent Bureau of Broadcast’s findings that
he lacked writing experience when it conducted evaluation of employees in
preparation to the reorganization of said office pursuant to Executive Order
No. 297.^[8]

This was followed by his letter to Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas
of respondent Commission, dated May 12, 1988 or seven (7) days after receiving
is separation and terminal leave benefits on May 5, 1988, appealing for his
reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal was without a valid cause as he
is a permanent civil service eligible employee. Again, on July 28, 1988 and June 9, 1989, he wrote Chairman Sto.
Tomas following up his appeal for reinstatement.^[9] These
acts of petitioner can in no way be interpreted as abandonment of his
appeal. On the contrary, it showed
petitioner’s strong desire for reinstatement and not separation from government
service. His acceptance of separation
and terminal leave benefits was dictated more by economic necessity rather than
a desire to leave government employment.

The procedures for the removal of employees pursuant to
government reorganization such as that mandated by Executive Order No. 297 was
laid down by Republic Act No. 6656, entitled “An Act To Protect the
Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the
Implementation of Government Reorganization”, which was given retroactive
effect as of June 30, 1987. They are as
follows:

“Sec. 2. No officer or
employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and
after due notice and hearing. A valid
cause for removal exists when pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a
position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is need to merge,
divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the
service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or some of the
following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the
removals made as a result of the reorganization giving rise to a claim for
reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved party;

a)
Where there is a
significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of
the department or agency concerned;

b)
Where an office is
abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created;

c)
Where incumbents are
replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance
and merit;

d)
Where there is a
reclassification or offices in the department or agency concerned and the
reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the original
offices;

e)
Where the removal
violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof.”

“x x x

“x x x

“Sec. 4. Officers and
employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment
to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their
former positions or in case there are not enough comparable positions, to
position next lower in rank.

“No new employees shall be taken in until all permanent
officers and employees have been appointed, including temporary and casual
employees who possess the necessary qualification requirements among which is
the appropriate civil service eligibility, for permanent appointment to
positions in the approved staffing pattern, in case there are still positions
to be filled, unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily
confidential or highly technical in nature.

“Sec. 5. Officers and
employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for
appointment in other agencies if they meet the qualification requirement of the
positions therein.”

Petitioner’s dismissal was not for a valid cause, thereby
violating his right to security of tenure. The reason given for his termination, that there is a “limited number
of positions in the approved new staffing pattern” necessitating his
separation on January 31, 1988, is simply not true. There is no evidence that his position as senior newscaster has
been abolished, rendered redundant or merged and/or divided or consolidated
with other positions. According to
petitioner, respondent Bureau of Broadcast had accepted applicants to the
position he vacated. He was
conveniently eased out of the service which he served with distinction for
thirteen (13) years to accommodate the proteges of the “new power
brokers”.

Respondent Commission’s reliance on its earlier decision in the
leofilo Pa-alan case^[10]
promulgated on April 21, 1989, that acceptance of benefits renders an appeal
“closed and terminated”, is misplaced. It deprives petitioner of his right to due process and added
another ground for his removal not contemplated by R.A. No. 6656, that is, the
mere payment of his separation and terminal leave benefits.

Settled is the rule that separation or replacement of officers and
employees pursuant to government reorganization should be only for
“justifiable reasons”^[11] or
for any of the grounds enumerated in Section 3 of Executive Order No. 17.^[12]

Even though in the case of Dario vs. Mison, et. al.^[13]
We have ruled that the State has not lost its right to reorganize the
Government even after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2,
1987, the separation of Career Civil Service employees pursuant to such
reorganization must be done in good faith.

In recourse, petitioner is a holder of a Professional Career
Civil Service eligibility. He had been
permanently appointed to the government service since 1977, had been president
and even sent abroad to represent the Bureau of Broadcast in the National
Association of Broadcaster Convention in 1987. He was not removed for any of the grounds mentioned in Section 3 of E.O.
No. 17 nor pursuant to a valid cause under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6656.

Respondent Civil Service Commission gravely abused its discretion
in finding that petitioner’s receipt of separation and terminal leave benefits
renders his appeal closed and terminated and consequently its Resolutions of
June 28, 1989 and November 27, 1989 are hereby annulled and set aside.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is given due
course and the Resolutions of the CSC of June 28, 1989 and November 27, 1989
are hereby annulled and set aside. Respondents Press Secretary and Director of the Bureau of Broadcasts are
hereby ordered to reinstate petitioner Edgardo Dytiapco to the position he was
holding immediately before his dismissal without loss of seniority with full
pay for the period of his separation. Petitioner is likewise ordered to return to respondent Bureau of
Broadcast the separation pay and terminal leave benefits he received in the
amount of P26,779.72 and P19,028.86 respectively. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., in the result.

^[1]
Letter of then Minister Francisco Tatad dated February 16, 1979 in the Records
of the Civil Service Commission.

^[2]
Annex “A”, Petition.

^[3]
Annex “A”, Reply.

^[4]
Disbrusement Vouchers in the Records of the Civil Service Commission.

^[5]
Annex “B”, Petition.

^[6]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.

^[7]
Petition, p. 4.

^[8]
Annex “C”, Petition for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution dated July
28, 1989, CSC Records.

^[9]
Annexes “C” and “D”, Reply.

^[10]
CSC Case No. 234F.

^[11]
Sec. 1, Executive Order No. 17.

^[12]
PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 2, ARTICLE
III OF THE FREEDOM CONSTITUTION. Executive Order No. 17 recognized the “unnecessary anxiety and
demoralization among the deserving officials and employees” the ongoing
government reorganization had generated, and prescribed as “grounds for
the separation/replacement of personnel:

1) Existence of a case for
summary dismissal pursuant to Section 40 of the Civil Service Law;

2) Existence of a probable cause
for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as determined by the
Ministry Head concerned;

3) Gross incompetence or
inefficiency in the discharge of functions;

4) Misuse of public office for
partisan political purposes;

5) Any other analogous ground
showing that the incumbent is unfit to remain in the service or his
separation/replacement is in the interest of the service.

See also Floreza vs.
Ongpin, G.R. No. 61356, 182 SCRA 692 (1990), at 704.

^[13]
G.R. Nos. 81954, 81967, 82023, 83737, 85310, 85335 and 86241, 176 SCRA 84 1989.