MITA PARDO DE TAVERA, AS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, POPULATION COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND GUALBERTO AMABLE, JR., RESPONDENTS.

The reorganization of the then Ministry of Social Welfare and
Development (MSWD) was decreed by Executive Order No. 123 promulgated on January 30, 1987.  Included in the reorganization thus directed
was the Population Commission (POPCOM) which was attached to the MSWD.

Pursuant to that directive, a new plantilla
and staffing pattern of the POPCOM was drawn up, known as the
“Organization, Staffing and Classification Action Summary”
(OSCAS).  Among the changes effected by
the reorganization was the reclassification of the position of Population
Programs Coordinator to POPCOM Regional Director.

The Board of Commissioners of the POPCOM then reviewed the
qualifications and performance records of the POPCOM officers and employees to
determine their fitness for re-appointment under the new set­up.  One of the employees so evaluated was Gualberto R. Amable, Jr., who was
holding the position of Population Programs Coordinator of Region XI at the
time.

Amable was apparently found wanting in
the qualifications prescribed for the position of POPCOM Regional Director
(which, as above stated, had replaced the former office of Population Programs
Coordinator in the various regions).^[1]
Apparently taken into account, too, was the fact that in an administrative
proceeding against Amable for dishonesty — arising
from his failure to “settle/liquidate” the amount of P40,950.00 in
his possession for an unreasonable length of time — he had been found guilty
after due notice and hearing, of “keeping the money in his person and not
in the office and utilizing it for the purpose not intended,” with the
mitigating circumstance of “lack of intention to defraud the government
for having refunded the amount in full,” and had accordingly been
sentenced to “the penalty of suspension for a period of fifteen (15) days
including the period of his preventive suspension.”^[2]

So, on December 23,
1987, the Chairman of the POPCOM Board of Commissioners advised him
in writing that in connection with the reorganization under Executive Order No.
123, he was not “considered for reappointment under the approved
Organization, Staffing and Classification Action Summary (OSCAS) by the Board
of Commissioners.”^[3]

The Board instead appointed Ignacio Ll. Arat
POPCOM Regional Director for Region XI. 
Although Arat was the employee
“next-in-rank” to Amable, the Board was of
the view that unlike the latter, he had all the qualifications prescribed for
the position of Regional Director.^[4]

Amable wrote to the Chairman on January 25, 1988, seeking
reconsideration.^[5]
This was denied on February 10, 1988.^[6]
Amable perfected an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission, which was docketed as CSC Case No. 159.  Another employee, Felix Sevidal,
joined him in the appeal.

Ruling that “no comparative assessment of candidates for **
(the positions in question) was done prior to appointment of employees who
replaced Messrs. Amable and Sevidal,”
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) required “the POPCOM Placement
Committee to evaluate the candidates ** on the basis of standards for
retention/termination enumerated under MC # 10, s. 1986, within fifteen (15)
days **.” This, by Resolution dated February 24, 1989. 
Both Amable and Sevidal
moved for reconsideration.  In the
meantime, the POPCOM complied with the resolution and submitted its report in
due time.

On February 5, 1990,
the CSC promulgated the first of two (2) resolutions now challenged in the
appeal at bar.^[7]
I (a) declared that upon the evidence on record, the appointment of Ignacio Arat as Regional Director (in preference to Amable) was “in order,” but (b) ordered Amable’s reinstatement “to a position comparable or
equivalent to his previous position where his qualifications are deemed fitted
with right to back salaries and restoration of his privileges and benefits as
employee,” since he (Amable) had “disputed
validly the charge of dishonesty to which he served the penalty of 15-day
suspension” (sic) and it appears that another “charge against **
(him) for dishonesty, Falsification, and violation of anti-graft and corruption
act was dismissed” (sic)^[8]
by Secretary Pardo de Tavera
in a decision dated July 9, 1987.

Reconsideration of this Resolution of February 5, 1990 was sought by Amable,
and by Carmen P. Garcia, Executive Director III of the POPCOM.  Both motions were denied by Resolution dated October 4, 1990.^[9]
Amable’s motion for reconsideration was denied
because it was a second one, prohibited by Section 49 (2) Book V, Executive
Order No. 292 governing appeals from the CSC. 
Garcia’s motion — which stressed that “the main reason for the
non-reappointment of Amable is his being morally
unfit to the sensitive Population Program” — was denied because as
earlier stated by the CSC, Amable had “disputed
validly the charge of dishonesty for which he served the penalty of 15-days
suspension” and the “graft charge against him ** (had been)
dismissed.”

These two (2) resolutions were appealed to this Court by the
Chairman of the POPCOM Board of Commissioners who prays for the annulment
thereof “insofar as they order the POPCOM to reinstate ** respondent Gualberto R. Amable, Jr. to a
position equivalent or comparable to his former position.”

The appeal has merit, and the relief prayed for will be granted.

As disclosed by the record, there were two reasons why Amable was not considered for re-appointment in the
Commission on Population Control.  The
first was that he lacked the minimum qualifications even for the position he
was then holding, of Programs Coordinator. 
The second, his honesty or moral integrity was so far suspect as to make
him unfit for government service.

There is no question about the validity of the first reason.  It is undeniable that he could not and did
not meet the minimum standards for the position of Regional Director (to which
that of Programs Coordinator had been reclassified).  Indeed, even as regards the position of
Population Programs Coordinator, it is equally undeniable that he lacked an
important qualification for the office: 
a bachelor’s degree in Health, Social or Behavioral Sciences or
equivalent relevant courses; and if he remained undisturbed in his occupancy of
that position for many years, this can only be ascribed to tolerance, or lack
of awareness of his superiors of that lack. 
In any event, his deficiency in this respect having come to light, it is
clear that his reinstatement to an equivalent position is now out of the
question.

But more important than his lack of academic qualification is his
lack of that degree of honesty or moral integrity that is indispensable in
public service.

The record reveals that:

1) on learning that his Disbursing Officer, Auxiliadora
Juan, had received the amount of P40,950.00 as cash advance for the
transportation allowance of clinic personnel in Region XI, Amable,
who was then the Programs Coordinator of that region, required Juan to turn
over the money to him; this she did on June 24, 1986;

2) on July 2, 1986, Amable was directed
to immediately cause the liquidation in full of said amount, under sanction of
suspension of his salary and other monetary benefits due him; he failed to do
so;

3) the money being still in his personal possession more than six
(6) months later, Amable was again required on
January 7, 1987 to fully settle said account within five (5) days, under threat
of administrative and/or criminal prosecution for malversation
of public funds; Amable still failed to do so;

4) it was not until January 29, 1987, when Amable
received a copy of the Memorandum dated January 26, 1987, setting forth formal
charges of DISHONESTY against him and commanding his preventive suspension,
that he finally gave back to his office the amount of P40,950.00;

5) in his answer, Amable claimed that
part of the money, while in his personal possession, had been utilized for
travel expenses of certain DMPA staff members; he could not however present
evidence in substantiation of the claim; moreover, it does not appear that he
ever presented any claim for refund of the sums allegedly so utilized;

6) in his answer, Amable also asserted
that he had no intention to defraud the government, but gave no satisfactory
explanation why he took personal custody of the money in the first place and
did not keep it in his office, or why he failed to give it back immediately
upon demand but retained it in his possession for more than six (6) months; and

7) apart from this, other charges of dishonesty, falsification,
and graft were proffered against him although these were dismissed by the
POPCOM Chairman.

These uncontroverted circumstances
considered, it is difficult to understand and accept the respondent Commission’s
view that Amable had “disputed validly the
charge of dishonesty to which he served the penalty of 15-day suspension.”
The penalty of fifteen days’ suspension meted out to him obviously does not
reflect the gravity of the acts and omissions proven against Amable, or obscure the revelation thereby made of the
serious defect in his moral character; hence, it is no argument for his
reinstatement to advert to the relative lightness or levity of the penalty
imposed on him.

There was therefore ample justification for the decision not to
consider Amable for reappointment to the Population
Commission.  His separation from the
Government service is warranted by the provisions of Executive Order No. 17,
effective May 28, 1986,^[10]
which (in its Section 3) prescribes, as ground therefor,
the “existence of a probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act as determined by the Ministry Head concerned,” or
“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.” Nor is there any indication whatever that bad faith attended the
decision not to reappoint Amable so as to invalidate
his separation from the service in consequence of the reorganization of the
Population Commission.^[11]
It was grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Civil Service
Commission to hold otherwise and direct reinstatement of private respondent Amable.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the Resolutions of the
respondent Civil Service Commission dated February 5, 1990 and October 4, 1990 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and the
petitioner’s decision to consider private respondent Amable
ineligible for reappointment to the Population Commission is SUSTAINED.  Costs against private respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo p.
44

^[2]
Id., pp. 63, 65-66

^[3]
Id., p. 50

^[4]
Id., p. 17, 20-21

^[5]
Id., pp. 51-52

^[6]
Id., pp. 53-54

^[7]
Id., pp.
43-45

^[8]
Id., pp.
46, 47-48

^[9]
Id., pp.
46-49

^[10]
In relation to Sec. 1 of the Freedom
Constitution (Presidential Proclamation No. 3)

^[11]
SEE Dario v. Mison,
G.R. No. 81954, Aug. 8, 1989, 176 SCRA 84, 127