G.R. No. 92595. May 28, 1992
HON. MITA PARDO DE TAVERA, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, POPULATION COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND FELIX SEVI…
NARVASA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the
resolution dated October 20,1989 of the respondent Civil Service Commission
(CSC) ordering petitioner to reinstate private respondent Felix Sevidal to the
renamed position of Regional Director in the Population Commission (POPCOM)
without loss of seniority rights and without prejudice to the recovery of back
salary from the time of unlawful separation until reinstatement;
reconsideration of which was denied in a
subsequent resolution dated February 28,1990.
Section 21 of Executive
Order No. 123 promulgated on January 30, 1987 authorized the reorganization of
the governing body and secretariat of the POPCOM as an agency attached to the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Pursuant thereto, a new plantilla and staffing pattern was drawn
up and an “Organization, Staffing and Classification Action Summary”
(OSCAS) based thereon was prepared. The
position of Population Programs Coordinator was upgraded to Regional Director
for which, among others, an educational attainment of Bachelor’s Degree in
Health, Social/Behavioral Sciences or other relevant courses was prescribed.
After a review of the qualifications and performance of the
incumbent POPCOM staff, petitioner as Chairman of the POPCOM Board of
Commissioners notified private respondent Felix Sevidal, then Population
Programs Coordinator, in a Memorandum dated December 28, 1987, that he
“was not being considered for reappointment under the approved
Organization, Staffing and Classification Action Summary (OSCAS) by the Board
of Commissioners.” [1]
Appointed in his stead was Placido N. Triste who holds a Bachelor’s degree in
Philosophy and a Master’s degree in Public Management.
Private respondent forthwith resorted to the CSC by joining the
appeal of Gualberto R. Amable, Jr., another Population Programs Coordinator who
was not re-appointed as Regional Director.
In a resolution dated February 24, 1989, the CSC directed the
POPCOM Placement Committee to “evaluate the candidates for said position on the
basis of standards for retention/termination enumerated under MC #10, s. 1986,
within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of this resolution.”[2]
Sevidal moved for a reconsideration of said resolution. The POPCOM complied therewith and submitted
a report finding that the appointees[3] had a
decided advantage over therein appellants Sevidal and Amable in terms of
education, training, experience and outstanding accomplishments as well as
perceived moral fitness to hold public office.[4]
On October 20, 1989, the CSC ruled favorably on private
respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
Finding that he had never been found guilty of any offense, the
CSC concluded that Sevidal’s separation from the service was without legal
basis. Thus, the directive, subject of
this petition.[5]
Her motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CSC, as
already stated, in its resolution dated February 28, 1990, petitioner took the
present recourse setting forth the following justifications for the allowance
of the writ:[6]
The CSC gravely abused its discretion when it required the
appointment of petitioner who was not qualified for the position. The CSC also acted contrary to the
Constitution, pertinent laws, and decisions of this Honorable Court by refusing
to consider uncontroverted facts showing that private respondent is not fit to
continue in the service.
The petition is meritorious and will be granted. The respondent Civil Service Commission did
act with grave abuse of discretion in directing the appointment of private
respondent to the position of Regional Director notwithstanding the fact that
he clearly lacked the requisite educational qualification and that record of
his public service raises serious questions about his moral fitness to remain
in office.
Consistent with the elevation of the position of Population
Programs Coordinator to Regional Director in the new plantilla and staffing
pattern of the POPCOM, the educational qualification standard for the upgraded
position was changed so as to require the holder or appointee to have a
Bachelor’s Degree in Health, Social or Behavioral Sciences or other courses
relevant to the position. Private
respondent being only a third year college student, it is plain to see that he
does not meet the minimum academic qualification for the position of Regional
Director. For the respondent Civil
Service Commission then to direct that private respondent be appointed to a
position for which he does not possess the required educational qualifications
is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, being at
cross-purposes with its (CSC’s) bounden duty to ensure that only the qualified
are admitted to the public service, hence to “disapprove those
(appointments) whose appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibility or
required qualifications.”[7]
Such grave abuse of discretion is compounded by the public
respondent’s equally indefensible dismissal of private respondent’s derogatory
record as of little moment, simply because he had not been convicted of any of
the charges detailed in said record, as follows:[8]
1. In September 1975, private respondent was
among the thirty (30) employees of POPCOM who were considered misfits,
undesirable and were thus dismissed from the service. Private respondent was then senior executive assistant II in the
Office of the POPCOM Executive Director. He was dismissed for forging the signature of
the POPCOM Executive Director. For unknown reasons, private respondent was reinstated ahead of the others.
2. On May 28, 1987, charges for dishonesty
were filed against private respondent on the basis of the findings of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which recommended the criminal and
administrative prosecution of private respondent. The NBI conducted investigation on the non-completion and
non-existence of projects and loss of construction materials.
It was found by NBI agents that private respondent allowed the use
of eleven (11) bags of cement by a private person, when said construction
material was intended for construction and completion of the authorized
driveway and guardhouse of the POPCOM regional office in Cebu. The NBI recommended the filing of (a)
charges for technical malversation with the Tanodbayan; (b) administrative
charges against private respondent. The
administrative case had to be dismissed not on the merits but due to the
repeated failure of the complainant Salvador P. Malto, who subsequently
resigned from the POPCOM, and the NBI agents to appear in the proceedings.
3. In another administrative charge, private
respondent was charged with conduct prejudicial to the service by charging
against official funds his private telephone calls from the POPCOM Cebu
Regional Office to his residence. He
was directed to reimburse POPCOM the total amount of P1,575.25 for the
telephone bills, which private respondent has refused to do up to the present.
It further appears that:[9]
3.1 In his capacity
as the head of a regional office, Mr. Sevidal was directly involved in
pernicious exchanges of formal charges and counter-charges with his
administrative Officer I, causing dissension and general demoralization among
the staff in said office. Many of them
were dragged into the cases and had somehow to take sides, thereby fomenting
antagonism even among themselves. The situation
has escalated to such en extent that management had to reassign Mr. Sevidal to
RPO XI and the other to the Central Office. It is not difficult to approximate the damage this has caused the
Program in that region and also to the image of the Commission itself. It is enough to state that up to now, long
after both protagonists left the region, negative effects are still being
perceived.
As aptly contended by petitioner:
x x x It is true that Mr. Sevidal had never been convicted of a
grave offense (the penalty for the first infraction of which has even been
raised to that of dismissal under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, s.
1989). Just the same, what we are
maintaining most respectfully is that non-conviction any charge, alone,
does not absolutely exempt anybody from being morally unfit or notoriously
undesirable, especially through other perceived actions over a period of
time but for which they were not formally called upon to answer. Not if one’s official actuations have
consistently been found to be wanting and dysfunctional aside from serving to
foment an organizational atmosphere that only stifles the morale and
performance of his subordinates. This
was precisely what happened to the case of Mr. Sevidal. His numerous administrative cases merely
serve to confirm it — not on the innate merit of each part but the collective
impact of the whole.[10]
Parenthetically, Executive Order No. 17 effective May 28, 1986
cites as a valid cause for separation or replacement of a public officer or
employee “the existence of a probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act as determined by the Ministry
Head concerned[11] or
“any analogous ground showing that the incumbent is unfit to remain in the
service or his separation/replacement is in the interest of the service.”[12]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolutions of respondent Civil
Service Commission dated October 20, 1989 and February 28, 1990 are annulled
and set aside. Costs against private
respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., (Retired, May 11, 1992)
[1]
Annex “D”, Petition, p. 44, Rollo
[2]
Annex “A”, Petition, p. 77, Rollo
[3]
Placido N. Triste vice herein private respondent. Felix Sevidal and Ignacio Ll. Arat vice Gualberto Amable, Jr.
[4]
Annex “1”, Comment of Private Respondent, pp. 107-110, Rollo
[5]
Similar dispositions were made by the Commission as regards Amables, which on
appeal by the Population Commission Chairman (G.R. No. 95915) were reversed by
this Court in a Decision promulgated on Aug. 16, 1991 (reconsideration denied
by RES, Oct. 24, 1991)
[6]
p. 6, Petition, p.17, Rollo
[7]
Section 9 (h), P.D. No. 807
[8]
pp. 19-22, Petition, pp. 30-33, Rollo
[9]
Communication of petitioner Secretary Mita Pardo de Tavera dated April 6, 1989
addressed to CSC Chairman Sto. Tomas, Annex “1”, Comment of Private
Respondent, p. 109, Rollo
[10]
Communication dated November 10, 1989 of public respondent to CSC Commissioner
Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Rollo, p. 116
[11]
Section 3, par. 2, E.O. No. 17,
underscoring supply
[12]
Section 3, par. 5, Ibid