PENDATUN ALIM, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, SALVADOR MISON, COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND JESUSA TAGUINOD, RESPONDENTS.

This is still another case where the petitioner invokes his
security of tenure against what he claims to be an unlawful removal.  His contention is that having been granted a
permanent promotional appointment, he cannot thereafter be demoted to his
original position by the withdrawal of his promotion.  The respondents demur, claiming that his
appointment was conditional and therefore revocable.

There are three employees involved in this controversy in the
Bureau of Customs, namely, Pendatun Alim, the herein petitioner, who was
originally holding the permanent position of Customs Examiner; Efigenia A.
Cruz, who was originally holding the permanent position of Principal Customs
Appraiser; and Jesusa Taguinod, the herein private respondent, who was
originally holding the permanent position of Valuation and Classification
Officer.

When the Bureau of Customs was reorganized pursuant to EO 127,
Alim was promoted to the position of Principal Customs Examiner, effective
March 1, 1988, “subject to the final outcome of the appeal of the
adversely affected employees, if any.”^[1]
The position was at that time vacant. 
Cruz was removed and replaced by Taguinod as Principal Customs
Appraiser, effective April 15, 1988. 
Cruz protested her removal and was among the employees sustained by the
Court in Dario v. Mison and the other related cases.^[2]

In these cases, the Court directed inter alia as
follows:

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IS ORDERED TO REINSTATE THE
EMPLOYEES SEPARATED AS A RESULT OF HIS NOTICES DATED JANUARY 26, 1988.

THE EMPLOYEES WHOM COMMISSIONER MISON MAY HAVE APPOINTED
AS REPLACEMENTS ARE ORDERED TO VACATE THEIR POSTS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF
WHATEVER BENEFITS THAT MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. 
(Emphasis supplied).

Conformably, the Commission issued the following guidelines in
its Order dated November 27, 1989:

If the reinstatements of some of these officials and employees as
indicated in Annex “A” to their old positions are not possible in
view of the changes in position title, abolition, upgrading or such other
similar changes, the following guidelines shall be observed:

x x x

3.  Where the position of the appellants have
been filled by appointments of new recruits and/or by the promotion of
employees who were retained in the service by the Commissioner of Customs:

3.1.   The new recruits so appointed and/or employees
who were promoted shall vacate and relinquish said positions and those who were
promoted shall be restored to their former or comparable positions.

3.2.   The appellants shall be reinstated to
their old positions thus vacated. 
(Emphasis supplied).

Cruz was presumably reinstated as Principal Customs Appraiser as
we have heard no further complaint from her. 
But Alim is before us with a grievance. 
On October 16, 1989, he was returned against his will to his original
position of Customs Examiner, retroactive to March 1, 1988.  This in effect nullified his earlier
promotional appointment as Principal Customs Examiner.  Taguinod was not restored to her original
position as Valuation and Classification Officer.  Instead, she was promoted to Principal
Customs Examiner, vice Alim.

Alim protested his demotion to Customs Examiner, arguing that
this constituted a separation without cause from his permanent position of
Principal Customs Examiner.  His appeal
was dismissed for lack of merit by the respondent Civil Service Commission on
June 25, 1990.^[3]
Reconsideration was denied on April 30, 1991,^[4]
the Commission holding as follows:

It was explicitly resolved in our Resolution of June 25, 1990 that
the appointment of the Movant as Principal Customs Examiner was conditional and
it was made subject to the final outcome of the appeal of those adversely
affected employees in the BOC reorganization. 
Hence, as we stated in the said Resolution, Movant Alim “cannot now
question much more refute the decision of the appointing authority demoting him
to his former position since the outcome of the case filed by the Customs
employees was for them to be reinstated to their former positions.”

What is involved here is not a simple case of restoring two (2)
affected employees to their former respective positions but it involves the
issue as to whose promotional appointment, between Alim and Taguinod, should be
upheld in the course of the implementation of the Supreme Court decision in the
consolidated BOC cases.  Thus, this act
of Movant Alim of questioning the appointment of Taguinod to the contested
position is tantamount to a protest which has to be resolved in favor of the
upholding of the decision of the appointing authority, in the absence of proof
that Taguinod is not qualified for the position.

The petitioner has come to us for relief.

It shall be granted.

Alim was appointed
to a position that at the time was vacant.  There was no other claimant to the position
and nobody protested his promotion thereto. 
Alim was not a party in the Mison cases above referred to, either as
petitioner or respondent.  The position
of Principal Customs Examiner to which he had been promoted was not involved in
any way in any of the said cases.

The respondents justify Alim’s return to his original position as
Customs Examiner on the ground that his promotion as Principal Customs Examiner
could be revoked because it was conditional. 
It is urged that the Customs Commissioner was competent to return Alim
to his original position as this was only an implementation of the directive of
the Court in the said Mison cases.

The directive of the Court and indeed the guidelines of the Civil
Service Commission in implementation thereof clearly call for the reinstatement
of those declared in the Mison cases to have been illegally removed.  According to Webster, to reinstate means
“to restore to a former condition or position.” This is the ordinary
and generally understood meaning that should be given to that word as used in the decision.

Following the Court directive, the Customs Commissioner should
have returned Taguinod to her original position of Valuation and Classification
Officer, to give way to the reinstatement of Cruz as Principal Customs
Appraiser.  This was not done,
however.  Instead, Taguinod was promoted
to the position of Principal Customs Examiner, which was already permanently
held by the herein petitioner.

It bears repeating that Alim was a stranger to the conflict
between Cruz, who was removed from her position as Principal Customs Appraiser,
and Taguinod, who was promoted to Cruz’s position.  Yet he became a victim of the reshuffle made
by the Customs Commissioner in the implementation of the Mison decision.

The respondent Civil Service Commission insists that what is
involved in this case is the discretion of the appointing authority in deciding
who among several candidates for the same position should be appointed.  To be sure, we have consistently held that
such discretion cannot be controlled, not even by this Court, as long as it is exercised properly.^[5]
However, it must be stressed that this doctrine is applicable only when the
position in question is vacant.

That is not the situation in the case before us.  The plain fact is that the petitioner was
permanently appointed to the disputed position. 
The issue facing us is
not one of discretion.  The issue we must
resolve is whether the
petitioner can be removed as Principal Customs Examiner because the Customs
Commissioner now believes that another person has superior credentials.

It is noted that when Alim was promoted in 1988, he was
considered eligible for and deserving of the promotion.  It is immaterial that subsequent to the
promotion of one employee, the appointing authority has a change of mind and
decides that another employee should have been chosen.

By returning Alim against his will to his original position as
Customs Examiner, Commissioner Mison demoted the petitioner from the position
of Principal Customs Examiner to which he had been promoted in 1988.  No objection to his promotion was raised
then; to date in fact no appeal has been made against him by any protesting
employee.  The condition attached to the
promotion not having occurred – and certainly it cannot last for ever – that
promotion has as a consequence become permanent.  The demotion of the petitioner was a
revocation of that promotion and in effect a prohibited removal without cause.

We hold that the petitioner has gained security of tenure in his
position as Principal Customs Examiner and cannot
now be removed from it to give way to Taguinod’s promotion.  Even if Commissioner Mison now believes that
she is better qualified for that position, that assessment is not reason enough
to justify the petitioner’s demotion to accommodate her.  The injunction of the Constitution is clear
and inflexible.  The petitioner cannot be
removed as Principal Customs
Examiner except only for cause as provided by law and as established by
preponderant evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Pendatun
Alim is hereby REINSTATED to the position of Principal Customs Examiner in the
Bureau of Customs, with back salaries from the date of his removal therefrom
until his actual reinstatement.  It is so
ordered.

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

^[1]
Annex 1, Comment of Private Respondent.

^[2]
176 SCRA 84.

^[3] Rollo,
p. 25.

^[4] Ibid.,
p. 31.

^[5]
Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327; Central Bank vs.
Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744; Santiago vs. Civil Service
Commission, 178 SCRA 733; Patagoc vs. Civil Service Commission, 185 SCRA
411; Lopez vs. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 269.