PANIS vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION patronage, where tenurial rights are subject to the whims of

officialdom.
FACTS:

Petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer of the On 1 August 1980 Filomena R. Mancita was appointed
Hospital,while private respondent was Administrative Officer of Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC) of Pili, Camarines
the City HealthDepartment detailed at the said hospital. The Sur, in a permanent capacity. On 14 March 1983 when the Local
Mayor appointed private respondent to the position of Assistant Government Code took effect, the office was renamed Municipal
Chief of Hospital for Administration of CCMC. Petitioner, a Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC). On 28 March
1

candidate for the said position, promptly protested the 1983 the Sangguniang Bayan of Pili approved Resolution No.
appointment before the Regional Office of the Civil Service 38 creating and organizing the Office of MPDC. Mancita held
2

Commission (CSC). The CSC Regional Office, over the position until 1985.
however,indorsed the matter to the Office of the City Mayor,
which in turn referred itto the Office of the City Attorney. The City On 1 January 1985 the Joint Commission on Local Government
Attorney dismissed petitioner's protest and upheld the Personnel Administration approved the reorganization plan and
appointmentof private respondent. This dismissal was affirmed staffing pattern of the Municipality of Pili. In a letter dated 17
3

by the CSC Regional Officeand later on appeal, by respondent June 1985 Mayor Anastacio M. Prila notified Mancita that her
CSC. Hence, the present petition.Petitioner contends that the services were being terminated effective at the close of office
appointment of private respondent was made inviolation of law, hours on 1 July 1985 on the ground that the Office of MDC was
existing civil service rules and established abolished as a result of the reorganization of the local
jurisprudencebecause (1) the position of Assistant Chief of government of Pili. Private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario who
Hospital for Administration wasnot legally created; (2) assuming was then the Municipal Budget Officer was appointed MPDC on
that it was, there was no qualificationstandard nor valid 10 June 1985 to take effect on 1 July 1985. Nacario was4

screening procedure; and (3) the seniority and next-in-rank rules replaced by Digna Isidro as Municipal Budget Officer. Isidro was
were disregarded. succeeded a year later by Eleanor Villarico who served until
1990.
ISSUE/S:
In 1988 the Local Government Officers Services, which included
WON the appointment was valid. the local Budget Office, was nationalized and placed under the
Department of Budget and Management. As a result, the
HELD: authority to appoint the Budget Officers of the different local
government units devolved upon the Secretary of the Budget.
YES. The position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for When Villarico resigned on 1 March 1990 the Budget Office
Administration is the very same position of Hospital became vacant until 30 September 1991, or for more than a
Administrator created by Ordinance No.1216. The Office of year, owing to the lack of a qualified candidate that the Secretary
Hospital Administrator was not extinguished, but the designation of the Budget could appoint. In the meantime, Juan Batan, the
thereof merely corrected to reflect the proper classification of the former Municipal Budget Officer of Baao, Camarines Sur, was
position under existing rules. The Office of Assistant Chief of appointed Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Budget Office of
Hospital for Administration therefore was created and existed in Pili. He was later replaced by Francisco Deocareza, the former
accordance with law. The determination who among the Budget Officer of Naga City, in the same capacity. 5

qualified candidates should be preferred belongs to the

appointing authority. The Mayor of Cebu City, in the instant
case, chose to appoint private respondent. In other words, one On 1 October 1991, petitioner Alexis D. San Luis, Cashier II of
who is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
was temporarily appointed Municipal Budget Officer of Pili by
"next in rank" to a vacancy is given preferential consideration for Secretary Guillermo N. Carague of the Department of Budget
promotion to the vacant position, but it does not necessarily and Management. When control over the Local Government
follow that he alone and no one else can be appointed. There is Officers Services was returned to the local government units by
no vested right granted the next in rank nor a ministerial duty virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160 as
imposed on the appointing authority to promote the holder to the implemented by E.O. 503), San Luis was reappointed to the
vacant position. An appointment, whether to a vacancy or to a same position on 22 June 1992, this time in a permanent
newly created position, is essentially within the discretionary capacity, by petitioner Delfin N. Divinagracia, Mayor of Pili. 6

power of whomsoever it is vested. Once a candidate possesses

the minimum qualities required by law, sufficient discretion, if San Luis started in the career civil service in 1977 as a casual
not plenary, is granted to the appointing authority. It is clerk in the DENR, rising from the ranks until he was appointed
markworthy that private respondent was detailed at the CCMC Cashier II based in Legaspi City, the position he was holding
primarily to help in upgrading the level of performance of the when appointed Municipal Budget Officer of Pili. 7

said hospital.

DELFIN DIVINAGRACIA vs PATRICIA STO. TOMAS Meanwhile, Mancita appealed her termination to the Merit
Systems and Protection Board (MSPB). On 20 June 1989 the
8

MSPB declared her separation from the service illegal, holding

that the Office of the Municipal Development Coordinator was
BELLOSILLO, J.: abolished by the Local Government Code of 1991 and not by
the reorganization of the Municipality of Pili as claimed by Mayor
The primordial purpose of our civil service laws is to establish Prila. According to the MSPB, Mancita was in fact qualified for
and maintain a merit system in the selection of public officers the newly-created position of MPDC since the powers and duties
and employees without regard to sex, color, social status or of the two positions were essentially the same. The MSPB
political affiliation. But there are times when appointments to ordered Mayor Divinagracia to reinstate Mancita to the position
public office are dominated by partisan favoritism and of MPDC or to an equivalent position, and to pay her backwages
from the date of her separation. The decision of MSPB was
9
Implementing the Revised Administrative Code (E.O. 292) does
appealed by Mayor Divinagracia to the Civil Service not apply to the present case because the rule covers only
Commission but the appeal was dismissed on 16 July 1990 per appointments in a chain of promotions and not where a public
CSC Resolution No. 90-657. On 15 October 1990, Mayor
10 officer was merely transferred to another position of the same
Divinagracia informed private respondent Nacario that she was rank, grade and level.
being relieved of her position as MPDC effective 16 November
1990 in order to comply with the MSPB decision to reinstate Petitioners further contend that Nacario was deemed to have
Mancita as MPDC. vacated her position as Budget Officer when she accepted her
appointment as MPDC considering that there were several
On 8 November 1990 private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario appointments made to the Budget Office in the past eight (8)
filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Prohibition with years since her transfer. According to petitioners, San Luis
15

Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Br. was also denied his right to be heard when public respondent
31, docketed as Civil Case No. P-17819, against CSC ordered him to vacate his position without affording him an
Chairperson Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Mayor Delfin N. opportunity to contest the claim of Nacario thus violating his
Divinagracia, Jr., Elium Banda, Regional Director of CSC in constitutional right to due process. 16

Region 5, and Filomena R. Mancita, praying for the annulment

of CSC Resolution No. 90-657. Presiding Judge Ceferino P. Upon the other hand, private respondent claims that she did not
Barcinas of Br. 31 issued a temporary restraining order enjoining voluntarily apply for transfer from the Budget Office to the Office
the implementation of the questioned CSC resolution and set the of MPDC but was constrained to "accept" the new position
date for the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. because of Mayor Prila. She was, in her own words, "a passive
Mancita filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial participant in the movement of personnel" in the municipal
court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Her motion was government of Pili having acted as a "subservient public official"
denied. Mancita then filed a special civil action in assuming the position of MPDC.
for certiorari under Rule 65 before this Court questioning the
denial of her motion. Through Mr. Justice Teodoro R. Padilla we
granted the petition and held that the lower court had no Nacario maintains that her "acceptance" of the position of MPDC
jurisdiction over the case since all decisions, orders and which she admits is of the same rank, salary grade and level
resolutions of the Civil Service Commission were subject to was motivated by her respect for Mayor Prila who was then her
review only by this Court on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules superior. In fact, according to her, she applied for the position of
of Court.11 Budget Officer with the Department of Budget and Management
while she was MPDC indicating that she did not abandon or
relinquish her former position as alleged by petitioners. 17

While the petition of Mancita was pending with us, Nacario sent
a query to public respondent Commission asking about her
status as a permanent employee of the Municipality of Pili after For their part, public respondents Sto. Tomas and Ereneta, Jr.,
she had accepted the position of MPDC. In a letter dated 8 insist on the application to the present case of the automatic
December 1992 public respondent opined that the reinstatement reversion rule provided under Sec. 13, Rule VI, of the Omnibus
of Mancita to the position of MPDC was not a valid cause for Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292. They submit that the
Nacario's termination, and since she was the former Municipal term "chain of promotions" must not be interpreted in a literal,
Budget Officer she had the right to return to that position.12 rigid and narrow sense but must be construed liberally in favor
of private respondent who merely accepted the position of
MPDC to accommodate her superior unaware that her new
On 15 March 1993 Mayor Divinagracia wrote to CSC appointment thereto would be infirmed. 18

Chairperson Patricia A. Sto. Tomas seeking a reconsideration

of her opinion of 8 December 1992. Mayor Divinagracia
explained the factual circumstances behind the ouster of We deny the petition. Petitioner Alexis D. San Luis cannot hold
Mancita and the resulting appointment of Nacario to the position on to the position of Municipal Budget Officer. On the other hand,
of MPDC, arguing that San Luis was validly appointed by the respondent Prescilla B. Nacario who is protected by law in her
Secretary of the Budget and confirmed by the CSC, hence, security of tenure should be reinstated thereto.
entitled to security of tenure.
13

Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292

On 27 May 1993 public respondent issued CSC Resolution No. provides that —
93-1996 denying the request of Mayor Divinagracia for a
reconsideration. Upholding Nacario's right to security of tenure Sec. 13. All appointments involved in a chain
the CSC held that the reinstatement of Mancita to the position of of promotions must be submitted
MPDC could not be a valid cause for the termination of Nacario. simultaneously for approval by the
Public respondent relied on Sec. 13, Rule VI, of the Omnibus Commission. The disapproval of the
Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, otherwise known appointment of a person proposed to a higher
as the Revised Administrative Code of 1978 in directing the position invalidates the promotion of those in
restoration of Nacario to her former position. Sec. 13 mandates lower positions and automatically restores
the return of an appointee, in a chain of promotions, to his former them to their former positions. However, the
position once his appointment is subsequently disapproved. affected persons are entitled to the payment
of salaries for services actually rendered at a
Petitioners have come to us for relief praying that CSC rate fixed in their promotional appointments.
Resolution No. 93-1996 be nullified for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion. On 5 October 1993, upon motion of Under the aforecited section, before a public official or employee
petitioners, this Court issued a status quo ante order enjoining can be automatically restored to her former position, there must
the enforcement of the questioned CSC order. Petitioners
14
first be a series of promotions; second, all appointments are
contend that Sec. 13, Rule VI, of the Omnibus Rules simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval; and third, the
CSC disapproves the appointment of a person proposed to a Nacario did not question her transfer because she revered the
higher position. mayor and did not in any way intend to displease him.

The essential requisites prescribed under Sec. 13 do not avail in The submissive attitude displayed by private respondent
the case at bench. To start with, the movement of Nacario from towards her transfer is understandable. Although Nacario was
the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC cannot be considered not informed of the reasons therefor she did not complain to the
a promotion for the term connotes an increase in duties and mayor or appeal her case to the CSC if in fact the same was not
responsibilities as well as a corresponding increase in made in the interest of public service. For it is not common
salary. Conformably therewith, we find the movement of
19
among local officials, even those permanent appointees who are
Nacario one of lateral transfer. 20
more secured and protected in their tenurial right, to oppose or
question the incumbent local executive on his policies and
A careful examination of the qualifications, powers and duties of decisions no matter how improper they may seem.
a Budget Officer and an MPDC provided under Secs. 475 and
476 of the Local Government Code of 1991 shows that the latter Even as early as 1968, in Nemenzo v. Sabillano, we held that
29

office is not burdened with more duties and responsibilities than —

the former. It is also interesting to note that there was, on the
contrary, a reduction in the basic salary of Nacario, from There are altogether too many cases of this
P30,505.20 per annum as Budget Officer to P27,732.00 per
21
nature, wherein local elective officials, upon
annum as MPDC. Moreover, private respondent admitted in
22
assumption of office, wield their new-found
her comment and in her memorandum that the position of power indiscriminately by replacing
Budget Officer and MPDC were of the same rank, salary grade employees with their own proteges,
and level. This was attested to by Vilma J. Martus, the Human
23
regardless of the laws and regulations
Resource Management Officer of Pili, who certified that per governing the civil service. Victory at the polls
Position Allocation List (PAL) of the municipality the Budget should not be taken as authority for the
Officer and MPDC are of equal level. 24
commission of such illegal acts.

Aside from the lack of a series of promotions, the other two (2) Private respondent was the Budget Officer of Pili for almost eight
requisites are not also present, i.e., the appointments of the (8) years from August 1980 until her transfer in July,
parties concerned were not simultaneously submitted to the 1988. Nacario appeared to be satisfied with her work and felt
30

CSC for approval — the appointment (permanent) of Nacario fulfilled as Budget Officer until Mayor Prila appointed her MPDC
was approved by the CSC on 13 June 1985 while the to fill up the position, which was not even vacant at that time. It
appointment (permanent) of San Luis was approved by the CSC was only seven (7) days after Nacario's appointment when
on 9 February 1993 — and, the ouster of Nacario from the Office Mayor Prila informed Mancita that her services were being
of MPDC was a result of the MSPB decision directing the terminated. Simply put, Mayor Prila was so determined in
reinstatement of Mancita and not because the CSC disapproved terminating Mancita that he conveniently pre-arranged her
her appointment as MPDC. replacement by Nacario. Although Nacario continued to
discharge her duties, this did not discourage her from trying to
While the contemporaneous construction of Sec. 13 by the CSC regain her former position. Undaunted, she applied with the
is entitled to great weight and respect, this Court shall depart Office of the Budget Secretary for the position of Budget Officer
from such interpretation when it is clearly erroneous or when25
upon learning that it was placed under the Department of Budget
there is no ambiguity in the rule, as in the instant case, and
26 and Management. She was not however successful.
yield to the letter of the law taking its terms in their plain, ordinary
and popular meaning. 27
In Sta. Maria v. Lopez we distinguished between a transfer
31

and a promotion and laid down the prerequisites of a valid

Let us now examine whether the lateral transfer of private transfer thus —
respondent was validly made in accordance with Sec. 5, par. 3,
Rule VII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292. If A transfer is a "movement from one position
not, then private respondent is entitled to be protected in her to another which is of equivalent rank, level
security of tenure. and salary, without break in service."
Promotion is the "advancement from one
Sec. 5, par. 3, of Rule VII provides that — position to another with an increase in duties
and responsibilities as authorized by law, and
Transfer shall not be considered disciplinary is usually accompanied by an increase in
when made in the interest of public service, in salary" . . . A transfer that results in promotion
which case, the employee concerned shall be or demotion, advancement or reduction or a
informed of the reasons therefor. If the transfer that aims to "lure the employee away
employee believes that there is no justification from his permanent position," cannot be done
for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the without the employees' consent. For that
commission. (emphasis supplied) would constitute removal from office. Indeed,
no permanent transfer can take place unless
the officer or employee is first removed from
According to Nacario she never applied or sought appointment the position held, and then appointed to
by transfer to the position of MPDC since she even had no prior another position. (emphasis provided)
knowledge of her appointment. She assumed the new
28

position only in order to comply with the move of Mayor Prila to

supposedly "reorganize" the municipal government of Pili. The rule that unconsented transfers amount to removal is not
however without exception. As we further said in Sta. Maria, —
 Concededly there are transfers which do not A final word. Petitioners cannot claim that they have been
amount to removal. Some such transfers can denied due process of law by public respondent. The records
be effected without the need for charges reveal that petitioners had the opportunity to question the
being proffered, without trial or hearing, and adverse opinion rendered by CSC Chairperson Sto. Tomas in a
even without the consent of the employee . . . letter dated 15 March 1993. The correspondence which was in
36

. The clue to such transfers may be found in the nature of a motion for reconsideration constitutes sufficient
the "nature of the appointment." Where the opportunity for petitioners who felt aggrieved to inform the CSC
appointment does not indicate a specific of their side of the controversy. What is sought to be
station, an employee may be transferred or safeguarded in the application of due process is not the lack of
assigned provided the transfer affects no previous notice but the denial of opportunity to be heard. 37

substantial change in title, rank and salary . .

. . Such a rule does not proscribe a transfer Before we write finis to this ponencia, we remind those public
carried out under a specific statute that officials who flaunt their authority — and those similarly inclined
empowers the head of an agency to — to faithfully abide by the Constitution and observe honestly
periodically reassign the employees and and in good faith the tenurial security of public servants who
officers in order to improve the service of the serve the government with sincerity and dedication. They should
agency . . . . Neither does illegality attach to not be moved or removed from their established positions
the transfer or reassignment of an officer without any lawful cause and pushed at will like pawns on the
pending the determination of an bureaucratic chessboard.
administrative charge against him; or to the
transfer of an employee, from his assigned
station to the main office, effected in good WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
faith and in the interest of the service pursuant DISMISSED. CSC Resolution No. 93-1996 is AFFIRMED
to Sec. 32 of the Civil Service Act. insofar as it orders the reinstatement of PRESCILLA B.
NACARIO to the Office of Municipal Budget Officer of Pili,
Camarines Sur. Accordingly, petitioner Mayor Delfin N.
Clearly then, the unconsented lateral transfer of Nacario from Divinagracia, or whoever is now the incumbent Mayor of Pili or
the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC was arbitrary for it acting in his behalf, is ORDERED to reinstate private respondent
amounted to removal without cause hence, invalid as it is Prescilla B. Nacario immediately to the position of Municipal
anathema to security of tenure. When Nacario was extended a Budget Officer of Pili and petitioner Alexis D. San Luis to vacate
permanent appointment on 1 August 1980 and she assumed the the said office without prejudice to regaining his former position
position, she acquired a legal, not merely an equitable, right to in the government if legally feasible and warranted.
the position. Such right to security of tenure is protected not only
by statute, but also by the Constitution and cannot be taken
32

away from her either by removal, transfer or by revocation of SO ORDERED.

appointment, except for cause, and after prior notice. 33

The guarantee of security of tenure is an important object of the GENERAL vs ROCO

civil service system because it affords a faithful employee
permanence of employment, at least for the period prescribed FACTS:
by law, and frees the employee from the fear of political and
Respondent Roco was appointed by then President Ramos in
personal prejudicial reprisal.34

1996 as Regional Director of the LTO in Region V, a position

equivalent to CES rank level V and later reappointed by then
Consequently, it could not be said that Nacario vacated her President Estrada to the same position in 1999.
former position as Budget Officer or abdicated her right to hold
the office when she accepted the position of MPDC since, in At the time Roco’s appointment in 1996 and 1999, he was not a
contemplation of law, she could not be deemed to have been CES eligible. However, during his incumbency in 1999, he was
separated from her former position or to have terminated her conferred CES eligibility by the CESB.
official relations therewith notwithstanding that she was actually
discharging the functions and exercising the powers of MPDC. On September 7, 1999, petitioner Luis Mario General, who is not
The principle of estoppel, unlike in Manalo v. Gloria, cannot 35
a CES eligible, was appointed by President Estrada as Regional
bar her from returning to her former position because of the Director of the LTO in Region V, the same position being
indubitable fact that private respondent reluctantly and hesitantly occupied by Roco. Pursuant thereto, DOTC Undersecretary
accepted the second office. The element of involuntariness Coloma as OIC issued a Memorandum directing General to
tainted her lateral transfer and invalidated her separation from assume the said office immediately and for Roco to report to the
her former position. Office of the Secretary for further instructions.

Roco filed before the CA a petition for quo warranto which was
For another thing, the appointment of San Luis as Budget Officer affirmed by the latter and ordered the nullification of General’s
carried with it a condition. At the back of his appointment is appointment. From this decision General filed a petition for
inscribed the notation Sa kondisyon nasa ayos ang review against Roco. The latter contends that CES eligibility is
pagkakatiwalag sa tungkulin ng dating nanunungkulan, which enough to acquire security of tenure which grants him the right
when translated means "Provided that the separation of the to hold the position disputed.
former incumbent is in order." Considering that the separation of
Nacario who was the former incumbent was not in order, San ISSUE:
Luis should relinquish his position in favor of private respondent
Nacario. This is, of course, without prejudice to San Luis' right to Whether Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility is enough
be reinstated to his former position as Cashier II of the DENR, and the appointment to a CES rank is not necessary to acquire
he being also a permanent appointee equally guaranteed security of tenure.
security of tenure.
RULING: Treasurer of Calbayog asking for automatic reinstatement to her
position without need of a new appointment since it was still
No. Section 27 (1), of the Civil Service Law (Subtitle A, Tittle I, vacant. The letter was referred to the Ministry of Finance (MF)
Book V of E.O. No. 292), provides that: which at that time had control over the City Treasuries. The
Ministry of Finance ruled in favor of Monsanto but said that
(1) Permanent status. - A permanent appointment shall be
appointment was only to retroact from the date of she was given
issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the
pardon. Monsanto asked for reconsideration saying that the full
position to which he is being appointed, including the
pardon wiped out the crime and thus her service in the
appropriate eligibility prescribed, in accordance with the
government should not be considered to have interrupted. Thus,
provisions of law, rules and standards promulgated in pursuance
the date of her reinstatement should correspond to the date of
thereof.
her preventive suspension; that she is entitled to backpay for
In the career executive service, the acquisition of security of the entire period of her suspension; and that she should not be
tenure which presupposes a permanent appointment is required to pay the proportionate share of the amount of
governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the CES P4,892.50. The motion for reconsideration was referred to the
Board, thus: Office of the President. Executive Secretary Factoran reversed
the ruling of MF, ruling that acquittal and not pardon is the only
Career Executive Service Eligibility ground for reinstatement in the public service and entitlement to
payment of his salaries, benefits and emoluments due to him
Passing the CES examination entitles the examinee to a during the period of his suspension pendente lite. Monsanto
conferment of a CES eligibility and the inclusion of his name in thus filed a petition before the SC. She contends that since the
the roster of CES eligibles. Conferment of CES eligibility is done pardon was given when her case was still pending on appeal
by the Board through a formal Board Resolution after an before the SC, no final verdict has yet been handed and
evaluation is done of the examinees performance in the four consequently the accessory penalty attached to the crime which
stages of the CES eligibility examinations. is forfeiture from public office did not attached. Also she
contends that the pardon given before the final verdict is
Appointment to CES Rank tantamount to acquittal.
Upon conferment of a CES eligibility and compliance with the
other requirements prescribed by the Board, an incumbent of a Issues:
CES position may qualify for appointment to a CES 1. What is the effect of absolute pardon?
rank. Appointment to a CES rank is made by the President upon 2. Is Monsanto entitled to backpay?
the recommendation of the Board. This process completes the 3. Is a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon
official’s membership in the CES and most importantly, confers by the Chief Executive, entitled to reinstatement to her former
on him security of tenure in the CES. position without need of a new appointment?
4. May petitioner be exempt from the payment of the civil
As clearly set forth in the foregoing provisions, two requisites indemnity imposed upon her by the sentence?
must concur in order that an employee in the career executive
service may attain security of tenure, to wit: Held:
1. Pardon is defined as "an act of grace, proceeding from the
a) CES eligibility; and power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts
the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the
b) Appointment to the appropriate CES rank. law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though
official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual
In addition, it must be stressed that the security of tenure of
for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially
employees in the career executive service pertains only to rank
to the Court. While a pardon has generally been regarded as
and not to the office or to the position to which they may be
blotting out the existence of guilt so that in the eye of the law the
appointed. Thus, a career executive service officer may be
offender is as innocent as though he never committed the
transferred or reassigned from one position to another without
offense, it does not operate for all purposes. The very essence
losing his rank which follows him wherever he is transferred or
of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies
reassigned.
guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime
In the case at bar, there is no question that respondent Ramon and the conviction thereof. It does not wash out the moral stain.
S. Roco, though a CES eligible, does not possess the It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness.
appropriate CES rank, which is - CES rank level V, for the 2. No. A pardon looks to the future. It is not retrospective. It
position of Regional Director of the LTO (Region V). Falling short makes no amends for the past. It affords no relief for what has
of one of the qualifications that would complete his membership been suffered by the offender. It does not impose upon the
in the CES, respondent cannot successfully interpose violation government any obligation to make reparation for what has
of security of tenure. Accordingly, he could be validly reassigned been suffered. “Since the offense has been established by
to other positions in the career executive service. judicial proceedings, that which has been done or suffered while
they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and
MONSANTO vs FACTORAN justly suffered, and no satisfaction for it can be required.”
3. No. Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from
Facts: In 1983, Monsanto (then assistant city treasurer of all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his
Calbayog City) was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa civil rights. But unless expressly grounded on the person's
thru falsification of public documents. She was sentenced to jail innocence (which is rare), it cannot bring back lost reputation for
and to indemnify the government in the sum of P4,892.50. The honesty, integrity and fair dealing. A pardon, albeit full and
SC affirmed the decision. She then filed a motion for plenary, cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing
reconsideration but while said motion was pending, she was appointment to anyone deemed to be of bad character, a poor
extended by President Marcos absolute pardon which she moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the pardoned
accepted (at that time, clemency could be given even before conviction. The pardon granted to petitioner has resulted in
conviction). On the strength of such pardon, she wrote the City removing her disqualification from holding public employment
but it cannot go beyond that. To regain her former post as prayer for backwages from September 1, 1971 to November 23,
assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the 1982 since in Monsanto this Court said he is not entitled to
usual procedure required for a new appointment. automatic reinstatement.

4. No. Civil liability arising from crime is governed by the REPUBLIC vs CA

Revised Penal Code. It subsists notwithstanding service of
sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served by Nature: Appeal by certiorari of the decision of the CA
pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. Petitioner's civil Petitioners: Republic (acting through the Sugar Regulatory
liability may only be extinguished by the same causes Administration), Republic Planters Bank Respondents: RTC
recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss of the thing Judge, RTC Deputy Sheriffs, Reyes, Treyes and Fudolin Quick
due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and Summary: SRA, an administrative body, cannot represent the
debtor, compensation and novation. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Republic of the Philippines because EO 18 did not give it the
G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989) powers to do so.

NOTE: Conviction by final judgment is now necessary before Facts:

parole or pardon could be extended. (Section 19, Article VII of • May 16, 1986 (EO 18 took effect May 28, 1986) – Republic
the Constitution, People vs. Casido; People vs. Salle) Planters Bank (RPB) filed a complaint in the RTC for sum of
money/delivery of personal property with restraining order
SABELLO vs DECS and/or preliminary injunction against Philippine Sugar
Commission (PHILSUCOM) and the National Sugar Trading
Section 19: Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise Corporation (NASUTRA)
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, • They asked the court to order PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA to
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, render a faithful account of different bank accounts being held;
after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to render a faithful inventory of all the sugar stocks for the crop
to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the year 8485; to remit dollar accounts held; to deliver sugar stocks
Members of the Congress. of crop year 84-85; pay interests and penalties for accounts
covered by unpaid sugar quedans, damages, attorney’s fees
FACTS: (1) Petitioner, together with the barrio captain, were and cost of the suit
charged of the violation of Republic Act 3019, and both were • Before PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA could answer, a
convicted to suffer a sentence of one year and disqualification compromise agreement was submitted and was approved by
to hold public office. The herein petitioner appealed his case to the lower court
the Court of appeals, Manila. The Court of appeals modified the • Three orders were issued
decision by eliminating the subsidiary imprisonment in case of o First order – dismissed separate petitions for relief
insolvency in the payment of one-half of the amount being from judgment filed by different sugar associations
involved. The herein petitioner, being financially battered, could (National Federation of Sugar Cane Planters, Sugar
no longer hire a lawyer to proceed to the highest court of the Central Inc, Independent Sugar Planters)
land. (2) Petitioner was granted an ABSOLUTE PARDON by the o Second order – granted a second motion to resolve
President of the Republic of the Philippines, restoring him to 'full a pending motion for issuance of a writ of execution
civil and political rights.' With this instrument on hand, the herein and allowed the issuance of an alias writ of execution
petitioner applied for reinstatement to the government service, o Third order – required officers of the RPB to appear
only to be reinstated to the wrong position of a mere classroom before the court to explain why they should not be cited
teacher and not to his former position as Elementary School in contempt for defying the alias writ of execution
Principal I. • CA denied the petition for the nullification of the orders
because o RPB accepted the appointment as Trustee whose
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should be reappointed to his obligation is to pay received benefits by way of trustee’s fees
former position after the President’s absolute pardon and cannot question the right of private respondents to
attorney’s fees
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the o SRA may not lawfully bring action on behalf of the
Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports Republic because EO 18 says that PHILSUCOM
and/or his duly authorized representative is hereby directed to remains a judicial entity for 3 years for the purpose of
appoint petitioner to the position of Elementary School Principal prosecuting and defending suits against it.
I or its equivalent. o Petition should have been filed through the OSG and
not through the OGCC; SRA cannot lawfully represent
RATIO: (1) Taking into consideration that this petition is filed by the Government because it may only perform powers
a non-lawyer, who claims that poverty denies him the services and functions as may be authorized by the laws which
of a lawyer, We also set aside the requirement of exhaustion of created them
administrative remedies and resolved to go direct to the merits • SC required respondents to comment and issued TRO
of the petition. (2)In Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., this Court held directing respondent Judge to desist and refrain from further
that the absolute disqualification from office or ineligibility from proceeding in the civil case
public office forms part of the punishment prescribed under the • SC was informed that the Judge was ordering the
penal code and that pardon frees the individual from all the implementation of an alias writ of execution
penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil
rights. Although such pardon restores his eligibility to a public Issue/Held: • Did the CA err in holding that neither OGCC nor
office it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He SRA can represent the Government in an action before it? NO
should apply for reappointment to said office.As there are no
circumstances that would warrant the diminution in his rank, Ratio: Sol Gen says:
justice and equity dictate that he bereturned to his former • SRA has no legal personality to file the instant petition under
position of Elementary School Principal I and not to that of a the name of the Republic because under EO 18, it is not vested
mere classroom teacher. However, the Court cannot grant his with the legal capacity to sue.
• EO 18 – abolished PHILSUCOM but its juridical personality • It is tantamount to an indefinite floating assignment resulting in
was to continue for three years for the purpose of prosecuting a demotion. It removes her power of supervision over 41
and defending suits. CA committed no reversible error Private subordinate employees, thereby diminishing her status.
respondents says:
• Almost same with Sol Gen PASTOR vs CITY OF PASIG
• RPB – GOCC engaged in the banking business. o Petitioners
have no legal personality to initiate petition because SRA is not FACTS: Petitioner Remedios Pastor is Budget Officer of the
a party in the case before the TC (since it was filed against Municipality of Pasig. In 1992, she was reassigned to the Office
PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA). of the Municial Administrator pending investigation of reports
o It cannot be presumed that SRA had substituted against her concerning the issuance of Advice of Allotments. In
PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA in the case as both 1995, after those years with no case filed against her, she asked
continue to legally exist for the purpose of prosecuting for reinstatement to her former position. She was instead
and defending suits in liquidation of its affairs reassigned to another unit of the now city government.
SC says: CA correctly ruled that SRA may not lawfully bring an
action on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and that the ISSUES: Whether or not Pastor’s reassignment to various
OGCC does not have the authority to represent the petitioner in offices was equivalent to removal in office.
this case.
o EO abolished PHILSUCOM and created SRA but HELD: YES. It has been held that a reassignment that is
PHILSUCOM was allowed to continue as a juridical indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status and salary is
entity for 3 years for the purpose of prosecuting and in effect a constructive removal from the service.
defending suits by or against it…under the supervision
of the SRA TORRES vs DE LEON
o Sec 3, EO 18 does not specifically include the power
to represent the Republic nor the power to sue and be Q: When Torres was the Chapter Administrator of the Philippine
sued. National Red Cross (PNRC), General Santos City Chapter, the
o Sec 4, EO 18 – specific functions does not include PNRC Internal Auditing Office conducted an audit of the funds
the power to represent the Republic and accounts of the PNRC, General Santos City Chapter.
o CHARTER DOES NOT GRANT THE SRA THE Based on the audit report submitted to respondent De Leon,
POWER TO REPRESENT REPUBLIC IN SUITS Torres incurred a "technical shortage" in the amount of
FILED BY OR AGAINST IT. P4,306,574.23. De Leon in a Memorandum, formally charged
SC says SRA is an administrative agency petitioner with Grave Misconduct for violating PNRC Financial
o Administrative agency – only such powers as are Policies on Oversubscription, Remittances and Disbursement of
expressly granted to it by law and those that are Funds. After the completion of the investigation of the case
necessarily implied in the exercise; government body against petitioner, respondent issued a Memorandum imposing
charged with administering and implementing upon petitioner the penalties of one month suspension and
particular legislation transfer to the National Headquarters. Thereafter, Torres filed a
o Power to represent the Republic – withheld from SRA Notice of Appeal addressed to the Board of Governors of the
so it cannot institute the instant petition. PNRC through respondent and furnished a copy thereof to the
OGCC also cannot represent SRA or Republic o OGCC is the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, on April 21, 2008,
principal law office of all GOCCs including subsidiaries; the promulgated a Resolution dismissing Torres’ appeal and
president may not allow it to act as lawyer for a specified GOCC imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service. Torres
or subsidiary filed a motion for reconsideration with the CSC, but the same
o Since SRA is neither a GOCC or a subsidiary, OGCC was denied. According to Torres, the Supreme Court, in the
does not have the authority to represent it. case of Liban vs. Gordon held that the PNRC is not a
government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). Hence,
PADOLINA vs FERNANDEZ the CSC has no jurisdiction or authority to review the appeal that
Facts she herself filed.
• Fernandez was PAGASA’s Finance and Management Division
Chief who was reassigned to Taguig, pursuant to SO 129; Is Torres’ argument correct?
• Fernandez protested this as being tantamount to constructive
dismissal. Padolina refused to set SO 129 aside, and was A: No, Torres’ argument is not correct. The Civil Service
upheld by the CSC; Commission has jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court
• DOST Special Order returned certain employees to their held in the case of Liban vs. Gordon (2009) that the PNRC,
original assignments, but excluded others, including Fernandez; although not a GOCC, is sui generis in character, thus, requiring
• An investigation found Fernandez guilty of insubordination, the Court to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a
and was ordered to accept the reassignment; caseto-case basis. National Societies such as the PNRC act as
• The CA on appeal declared SO 129 void for violating security auxiliaries to the public authorities of their own countries in the
of tenure. The SC affirms, hence this MR. humanitarian field and provide a range of services including
disaster relief and health and social programmes. The PNRC,
Issue as a National Society of the International Red Cross and Red
>W/N the reassignment is valid. Crescent Movement, can neither "be classified as an
Held/Ratio instrumentality of the State, so as not to lose its character of
• No. A reassignment is a movement from one unit to another in neutrality" as well as its independence, nor strictly as a private
the same agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, corporation since it is regulated by international humanitarian
status, salary, and does not require an appointment. law and is treated as an auxiliary of the State. Here, the CSC
• SO 129 does not have any definite duration for reassignment, has jurisdiction over the PNRC because the issue at hand is the
it being expressly subject to a separate DOST Special Order. enforcement of labor laws and penal statutes as applied to
officials and employees of the government as provided under
the Administrative Code of 1987. The CSC has appellate
jurisdiction on administrative disciplinary cases involving the with grave misconduct and impose preventive suspension as a
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) consequence.
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days salary. Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Hence, the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over the remedy (DEAR) is applicable.
case.
Rulings: 1. To resolve this issue, we need to ascertain if the
WINSTON GARCIA vs MARIO MOLINA respondent's act of handing over the letter to Caretero
constituted grave misconduct. The CA concluded that the act of
Doctrines: The fact that the charge against the respondent was the respondent of handing over the letter to Caretero did not
subsequently declared to lack factual and legal bases did not, constitute grave misconduct because the act did not show or
ipso facto, render the preventive suspension without legal basis. indicate the elements of corruption, or the clear intent to violate
Gloria vs. CA has clarified that the preventive suspension of civil the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule. The Court
service employees charged with dishonesty, oppression or concurs with the CA.
grave misconduct, or neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil
Service Law, and cannot be considered unjustified even if the Misconduct in office, by uniform legal definition, is such
charges are ultimately dismissed so as to justify the payment of misconduct that affects his performance of his duties as an
salaries to the employee concerned. officer and not such only as affects his character as a private
individual. To warrant removal from office, it must have direct
Facts: For review is the decision promulgated on April 29, 2004, relation to and be connected with the performance of official
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) nullified the Memorandum duties amounting either to maladministration or willful,
dated September 8, 2003 by which the petitioner, in his capacity intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
as the President of the Government Service Insurance System office. Moreover, it is “a transgression of some established and
(GSIS), had charged the respondent, an Attorney V in the definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or
Litigation Department of the Legal Service Group of the GSIS, gross negligence by a public officer.” It becomes grave if it
with grave misconduct and preventively suspended him for 60 “involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful
days. intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which
In his affidavit, Elino F. Caretero pointed to the respondent as must be established by substantial evidence.”
the person who had handed to him on August 26, 2003 the letter
entitled Is It True supposedly written by one R. Ibasco The record contains nothing to show that the respondent's act
containing "scurrilous and libellous statements" against constituted misconduct. The passing of the letter to Caretero did
petitioner. Considering that Ibasco denied authorship of the not equate to any "transgression" or "unlawful behavior," for it
letter, the finger of suspicion came to point at the respondent, was an innocuous act that did not breach any standard, norm or
who was consequently administratively investigated for grave rule pertinent to his office. Neither could it be regarded as
misconduct. After the investigation, the Investigation Unit "circulation" of the letter inasmuch as the letter was handed only
transmitted its Memorandum dated September 1, 2003 to the to a single individual who just happened to be curious about the
respondent to require him to explain the circulation and paper the respondent was then holding in his hands. The
publication of the letter, and to show cause why no handing of the letter occurred in ostensibly innocent
administrative sanction should be imposed on him for doing so. circumstances on board the elevator in which other employees
In response, he denied the imputed act. or passengers were on board. If the motive of the respondent
Thereafter, the petitioner issued Memorandum dated was to pass the letter in order to publicize its contents, he should
September 8, 2003 to formally charge the respondent with grave have made more copies of the letter. But that was not so,
misconduct, and to preventively suspend him for 60 days considering that Caretero categorically affirmed in his affidavit
effective upon receipt. The respondent sought the dismissal of about asking the respondent what he had wanted to do with the
the charge on the ground of its being baseless; and requested letter, to wit: Do you want me to photocopy the document Sir?,
the conduct of a formal investigation by an impartial body. but the respondent had simply replied: HINDI NA SA IYO NA
The respondent also instituted in the CA a special civil action for LANG YAN. It is plain, then, that intent to cause the widespread
certiorari to challenge the legality of the Memorandum dated dissemination of the letter in order to libel the petitioner could
September 8, 2003. not be justifiably inferred.
On April 29, 2004, the CA promulgated its assailed decision
annulling the petitioner's Memorandum dated September 8, To be sure, the respondent's act could not be classified as
2003. Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari. The pertaining to or having a direct connection to the performance
petitioner argues that it was in his power as the President and of his official duties as a litigation lawyer of the GSIS. The
General Manager of the GSIS to impose disciplinary action on connection was essential to a finding of misconduct, for without
the respondent, pursuant to Section 47 of the Administrative the connection the conduct would not be sanctioned as an
Code of 1987; that the characterization of the respondent's act administrative offense.
as grave misconduct was not arbitrary because the latter had
intentionally passed on or caused the circulation of the malicious The fact that the charge against the respondent was
letter, thereby transgressing "some established and definite rule subsequently declared to lack factual and legal bases did not,
of action" that sufficiently established a prima facie case for an ipso facto, render the preventive suspension without legal basis.
administrative charge; that the respondent had thereby violated The formal charge against the respondent was for grave
his solemn duty to defend and assist the petitioner in disregard misconduct, an administrative offense that justifies the
of his "legal, moral or social duty" to stop or at discourage the imposition of the preventive suspension of the respondent.
publication or circulation of the letter. He submits that the Gloria has clarified that the preventive suspension of civil
respondent's preventive suspension was done in accordance service employees charged with dishonesty, oppression or
with the Civil Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, grave misconduct, or neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil
and upon an evaluation of the evidence on record. Service Law, and cannot be considered unjustified even if the
Issues: charges are ultimately dismissed so as to justify the payment of
Whether the petitioner Garcia, in the exercise of his salaries to the employee concerned. Considering that the
authority, had sufficient basis to formally charge the respondent
respondent's preventive suspension had legal basis, he was not Because of the foregoing superseding events, it appears that
entitled to backwages. [respondent] was reporting, as he did report to office on certain
days per his daily time records submitted to the OPES. One key
2. Anent the petitioner's insistence that the respondent did not issue however is that many DTR entries were being questioned
exhaust his administrative remedies, Section 21 of the Uniform by [respondent’s] supervisor for being invalid or unauthorized
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides the considering his reported absences.
option either of filing a motion for reconsideration against the
preventive suspension order by the disciplining authority, or of Consequently, because of the inability to fully establish a
elevating the preventive suspension order by appeal to the Civil successive thirty-day absence without approved leave (AWOL)
Service Commission within 15 days from the receipt thereof. on the part of [respondent], the undersigned withdraws his
We find and hold that the respondent was not strictly bound by former recommendation to drop from the rolls.
the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. His failure to
file the motion for reconsideration did not justify the immediate Through his Memorandum9 dated October 16, 2003 for the
dismissal of the petition for certiorari, for we have recognized COMELEC en bane, respondent sought reconsideration of
certain exceptional circumstances that excused his non-filing of COMELEC Resolution No. 03-0278, as well as Com. Tuason’s
the motion for reconsideration. Among the exceptional Memorandum dated October 7, 2003. Respondent lamented
circumstances are the following, namely: when the issue that the COMELEC en banc was misled by Dir. Ibañez’s initial
involved is purely a legal question. recommendation to drop him from the rolls of employees, which
lacked factual and legal bases; and that he was not afforded due
Considering that the matter brought to the CA - whether the act process as he was never confronted with any formal charge
complained against justified the filing of the formal charge for regarding his alleged absenteeism prior to COMELEC
grave misconduct and the imposition of preventive suspension Resolution No. 03- 0278.
pending investigation — was a purely legal question due to the ISSUE: Was the respondent deprived of due process?
factual antecedents of the case not being in dispute. Hence, the
respondent had no need to exhaust the available administrative RULING: No. There is no question that a public officer or
remedy of filing the motion for reconsideration. employee who is AWOL may be separated from service or
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS dropped from the rolls of employees without prior notice. Rule
VI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave in the Civil
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs CRISOSTOMO PLOPINIO Service provides:

FACTS: Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. –

Respondent Crisostomo M. Plopinio served as a COMELEC An official or employee who is continuously absent
Election Officer III of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, prior to his without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working
separation from the service. A certain Alberto G. Adan (Adan) days shall be considered on absence without official
filed a letter-complaint against respondent alleging that because leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service
of respondent’s frequent absences, respondent failed to act on or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. However,
Adan’s petition for disqualification of a barangay candidate when it is clear under the obtaining circumstances that
named Jessie V. Sanchez. Acting Director IV Adolfo A. Ibafiez the official or employee concerned, has established a
(Dir. Ibanez), Personnel Department, COMELEC, conducted an scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial
investigation into Adan’s lettercomplaint against respondent and absences though less than thirty working (30) days 3x
submitted a Memorandum dated August 20, 2003 to in a semester, such that a pattern is already apparent,
Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. (Com. Tuason), dropping from the rolls without notice may likewise be
COMELEC, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the COMELEC justified.
en banc for appropriate action.
If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than
In its Resolution No. 03-0278 dated September 11, 2003, the thirty (30) working days, a written Return-to-Work Order shall be
COMELEC en bane adopted in toto Atty. Ibañez’s findings and served to him at his last known address on records. Failure on
recommendation to drop respondent from the rolls of Comelec his part to report for work within the period stated in the Order
employees effective January 1, 2003 and the salaries paid to shall be a valid ground to drop him from the rolls. (Emphasis
him until June 30, 2003 be charged against his leave credits. supplied.)
However, the same shall be without prejudice to the filing of
formal charge for violating reasonable office rules and Rule 19, Sections 93 and 96 of the Revised Rules on
regulations in view of his deliberate failure to submit his daily Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS)
time records for the months of January to April 2002 and from similarly state: Rule 19 DROPPING FROM THE
January until present of the current year. ROLLS
Sec. 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the
Com. Tuason then issued a Memorandum7 dated October 7, Rolls. – Officers and employees who are either
2003, directing respondent to immediately cease and desist habitually absent or have unsatisfactory or poor
from performing his official duties, based, among other grounds, performance or have shown to be physically and
on his unauthorized absences; and appointing an Acting mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped
Election Officer to serve the Municipality of Sipocot, Camarines from the rolls subject to the following procedures:
Sur, in order not to jeopardize the voters’ registration process at Absence Without Approved Leave An officer or
said Municipality. employee who is continuously absent without official
leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days shall
Meanwhile, Dir. Ibanez also issued a Memorandum dated be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls
October 7, 20038 for the COMELEC en banc, withdrawing his without prior notice. He/She shall, however, be
earlier recommendation to drop respondent from the rolls of informed of his/her separation not later than five (5)
employees. days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the
 address on his/her 201 files or to his/her last known December 2007.12 It averred that the PNP did not comply with
address; the bidding procedure prescribed under RA 9184 and its IRR, in
If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is that: (a) copies of the bid documents were not furnished to
less than thirty (30) working days, a written Return- to- possible bidders; (b) no pre-procurement and pre-bid
Work order shall be served on the official or employee conferences were held; (c) the invitation to bid was not published
at his/her last known address on record. Failure on in a newspaper of general circulation; (d) the procuring agency
his/her part to report to work within the period stated in did not require the submission of eligibility requirements as well
the order shall be a valid ground to drop him/her from as the technical and financial documents from the bidders; and
the rolls; (e) no post qualification was conducted. Further, it claimed that
there were "ghost deliveries," i.e., the tires were never delivered
If it is clear under the obtaining circumstances that the official or to the PNP and no repair and refurbishment works were actually
employee concerned, has established a scheme to circumvent performed on the LAVs.13 The alleged anomalous transactions
the rule by incurring substantial absences though less than thirty are as follows:
(30) working days, three (3) times in a semester, such that a
pattern is already apparent, dropping from the rolls without
notice may likewise be justified. Transactions Amount
1. Procurement of 40 tires for 10 LAVs ₱2,940,000.00
Section 96. Dropping from the Rolls; NonDisciplinary
2. Repowering and refurbishing of 10
in Nature. – This mode of separation from the service 142,000,000.00
LAVs
for unauthorized absences or unsatisfactory or poor
performance or physical or mental incapacity is non- 3. Repair and maintenance of 18 LAVs 255,600,000.00
disciplinary in nature and shall not result in the
4. Transportation and delivery expenses14 9,200,000.00
forfeiture of any benefit on the part of the official or
employee or in disqualification from reemployment in ₱409,
Total
the government. (Emphases supplied.) 740,000.0015

Based on current rules, a public officer or employee may be

dropped from the rolls for AWOL without prior notice, under any Espina, as the Acting Chief of the Management Division of the
of the following circumstances: PNP Directorate for Comptrollership at the time the
(1) the public officer or employee was continuously absent procurements were made,16 was impleaded in the aforesaid
without approved leave for at least 30 working days; or (2) the complaints for noting/signing the Inspection Report Forms
public officer or employee had established a scheme to (IRFs),17 which confirmed the PNP's receipt of the tires and
circumvent the rule by incurring substantial absences, though other supplies, and the performance of repair and refurbishment
less than 30 working days, three times in a semester, such that works on the LAVs. According to the FFIB-MOLEO, by affixing
a pattern was readily apparent. his signature on the IRFs, Espina supposedly facilitated the
fraudulent disbursement of funds amounting to
Dropping from the rolls is not disciplinary in nature. It shall not ₱409,740,000.00 when no goods were actually delivered and no
result in the forfeiture of any benefit of the public official or services were actually rendered.18
employee concerned nor in said public official or employee’s
disqualification from reemployment in the government. Thus, In defense, Espina denied any participation in the bidding and/or
the concerned public official or employee need not be notified procurement process and maintained that he belonged to the
or be heard. Management Division which is responsible for the inspection of
deliveries made to the PNP after the bidding and procurement
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and FACT-FINDING process.19 He also pointed out that pursuant to the Standing
INVESTIGATION BUREAU and OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY Operating Procedure (SOP) No. XXA20 dated November 17,
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW 1993, his only duty, as the said division's Acting Chief, was to
ENFORCEMENT OFFICES vs PS/SUPT. RAINIER ESPINA note the reports. According to him, it was not his responsibility
to personally inspect and confirm deliveries and go beyond the
contents of the IRFs submitted by his subordinates, absent any
The Facts irregularity reported by the property inspectors who are tasked
to check and examine deliveries.21

On July 11 and 17, 2012, petitioner the Fact-Finding

Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Deputy The Ombudsman Ruling
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices
(MOLEO) filed before the Ombudsman an affidavit- In a Joint Resolution22 dated December 19, 2012, the
complaint7 and a supplemental complaint,8 respectively, Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Espina and several
charging Espina and several other PNP officers and private other PNP officers for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019,
individuals for: (a) violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 7080,9 RA Section 65 (b) (4) of RA 9184, and for Malversation of Public
3019,10 RA 918411 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations Funds through Falsification under Article 217 in relation to Article
(IRR), and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of 171 of the RPC. The Ombudsman also found them guilty of
Public Documents under Article 217 in relation to Article 171 of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and, accordingly,
the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (b) Grave Misconduct and recommended their dismissal from government service.23
Serious Dishonesty; arising from alleged anomalies that
attended the Philippine National Police's (PNP) procurement of Specifically, the Ombudsman held that Espina executed
40 tires, and repair, refurbishment, repowering, and indispensable acts which led to the completion of the illegal
maintenance services of a total of 28 units of V-150 Light transactions.24 The Ombudsman likewise found it incredulous
Armored Vehicles (LAVs), and the related transportation and that the repair and refurbishment works on the LAV s were
delivery expenses of 18 units of LAV s between August and completed in only seven (7) days, i.e., from December 20, 2007
to December 27, 2007, considering the magnitude of the work There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the CA
involved, which included the delivery of the LAVs for repair, the imposed on Espina a three-month suspension reckoned from
inspection and acceptance of materials to be used, the actual the time he was actually dismissed from service.36
conduct of repair and refurbishment works, and the delivery,
inspection, and acceptance of the repaired and refurbished Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration37 which was,
LAVs.25 The Ombudsman even noted the admission of one of however, denied by the CA in a Resolution38 dated July 15,
the experts engaged in the repair of the LAVs that the repair and 2014; hence, the present petition.
refurbishment works thereon were still on-going as late as
February 2008 until 2010 and, hence, could not have been
completed in December 2007.26 The Issue Before the Court

On reconsideration, the Ombudsman, through a Joint The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Espina
Order27 dated July 8 2013, dropped the charges against Espina should be held administratively liable for the charges imputed
and several other PNP Officers, for violation of Section 65 (b) against him.
(4) of RA 9184, but sustained the other findings, including their
dismissal from service in view of their administrative liability. In The Court's Ruling
denying Espina's motion for reconsideration in the
administrative case, the Ombudsman pointed out that while it The petition is partly meritorious.
was not Espina's duty to make his own inspections of the alleged
deliveries and work as the same devolved upon the property
inspectors, "it was incumbent upon [Espina] to affix his signature At the outset, the Court emphasizes that as a general rule,
only after checking the completeness and propriety of the factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive when
documents."28 Such disregard of duty paved the way for the supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due
consummation of four (4) highly illegal and irregular respect and weight, especially when affirmed by the CA.39 In this
transactions, i.e., the disbursement of government funds case, except as to the legal conclusion on what administrative
despite apparent non-delivery of the items and non-performance offense was committed by Espina, the Ombudsman and the CA
of works procured.29 both found that Espina signed the IRFs even if there were
actually no tires delivered to the PNP and no repair and
refurbishment works performed on the LA Vs. Accordingly, these
Aggrieved, Espina filed a petition for review30 before the CA, imp findings of fact are conclusive and binding and shall no longer
leading both the Ombudsman and the FFIB-MOLEO be delved into, and this Court shall confine itself to the
(collectively, petitioners), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131114. determination of the proper administrative offense chargeable
against Espina and the appropriate penalty therefor.
The CA Ruling
In the case at bar, Espina was charged with grave misconduct
In a Decision31 dated February 27, 2014, the CA ruled in favor and serious dishonesty before the Ombudsman which found him
of Espina and held that his act of affixing his signature on the guilty as charged, and imposed on him the supreme penalty of
IRFs could not be considered as Grave Misconduct because he dismissal from government service with all its accessory
did not: (a) unlawfully use his official position for the purpose of penalties, while the CA adjudged him guilty only of simple
benefiting himself;32 and (b) exhibit corrupt or depraved motives, misconduct and punished him with a three-month suspension.
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established
rules. It observed that Espina had no participation in the bidding Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful
and procurement process as he belonged to the PNP's conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional
Management Division whose function is to inspect and note the purpose.40 It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of
deliveries to the PNP after the required bidding and procurement a rule of law or standard of behavior and to constitute an
process had taken place. As such, no liability could attach to him administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be
absent a nexus between his functions as Acting Chief of the connected with the performance of the official functions and
Management Division and the alleged anomalous procurement duties of a public officer.41 It is a transgression of some
process.33 established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 42
The CA found Espina guilty, instead, of Simple Misconduct, a
less grave offense punishable with suspension for one (1) month There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave
and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and misconduct and simple misconduct. In grave misconduct, as
dismissal for the second offense. It rejected Espina's defense of distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
reliance in good faith on the acts of his subordinates, holding corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
that he had the obligation to supervise them and ensure that the an established rule must be manifest.43 Without any of these
IRFs and Work Orders they prepared, as well as every elements, the transgression of an established rule is properly
procurement-related document released by his division, were characterized as simple misconduct only.44
regular, lawful, valid, and accurate, considering the significance
of the transaction related to the disbursement of public funds
over which great responsibility attached.34 On the other hand, dishonesty, which is defined as the
"disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness,
lack of integrity,"45 is classified in three (3) gradations, namely:
However, the CA absolved Espina from the charge of Serious serious, less serious, and simple.46 Serious dishonesty
Dishonesty, considering that he did not personally prepare the comprises dishonest acts: (a) causing serious damage and
IRFs but merely affixed his signatures thereon. At best, he grave prejudice to the government; (b) directly involving
imprudently failed to check and counter-check the contents of property, accountable forms or money for which respondent is
the IRFs and the Work Orders he signed, which, however, does directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to
not equate to Serious Dishonesty.35 commit material gain, graft and corruption; (c) exhibiting moral
depravity on the part of the respondent; (d) involving a Civil (ICIS); (b) the Accountability and Assistance Section; (c) the
Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility Management Improvement Section; and (d) the Claims and
such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of Examination Section (CES).57 Espina himself admitted that the
crib sheets; (e) committed several times or in various property inspectors who were tasked to personally inspect
occasions; (j) committed with grave abuse of deliveries to the PNP belong to the ICIS which was under his
authority; (g) committed with fraud and/or falsification of official management and stewardship.58 In Lihaylihay v. People,59 the
documents relating to respondent's employment; and (h) other Court pointed out that the nature of the public officers'
analogous circumstances.47 A dishonest act without the responsibilities and their role in the procurement process are
attendance of any of these circumstances can only be compelling factors that should have led them to examine with
characterized as simple dishonesty.48 In between the aforesaid greater detail the documents which they are made to approve.
two forms of dishonesty is less serious dishonesty which obtains
when: (a) the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the Here, while SOP No. XX4 dated November 17, 1993 which
government which is not so serious as to qualify as serious Espina cited does not expressly require the Head of the
dishonesty; (b) the respondent did not take advantage of his/her Management Division to physically re-inspect, re-check, and
position in committing the dishonest act; and (c) other analogous verify the deliveries to the PNP as reported by the property
circumstances.49 inspectors under him, his duty was not simply to "note" or take
cognizance of the existence of the IRFs, but to reasonably
Both grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, of which Espina ensure that they were prepared in accordance with law, keeping
was charged, are classified as grave offenses for which the in mind the basic requirement that the goods allegedly delivered
penalty of dismissal is meted even for first time offenders.50 to and services allegedly performed for the government have
actually been delivered and performed. As aptly pointed out by
Here, the CA correctly observed that while Espina may have the Ombudsman in its Joint Order dated July 8, 2013, "it was
failed to personally confirm the delivery of the procured items, incumbent upon [Espina] to affix his signature only after
the same does not constitute dishonesty of any form inasmuch checking the completeness and propriety of the
as he did not personally prepare the IRFs but merely affixed his documents."60 However, while Espina claims that all the
signature thereon after his subordinates supplied the details necessary supporting documents such as photographs and
therein. delivery receipts were attached to the IRFs at the time they were
routed to him for his signature,61 the Court is hard-pressed to
find proof substantiating such claim to justify his passive attitude
Neither can Espina's acts be considered misconduct, grave or towards them. In this jurisdiction, it is axiomatic that he who
simple. The records are bereft of any proof that Espina was alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.62 Without evidence
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or deliberate intent of showing otherwise, the Court is constrained to conclude that the
violating the law, or disregarding any established rule, or that he IRFs submitted to Espina for his signature were without
wrongfully used his position to procure some benefit for himself supporting documents and could not, perforce, be taken at face
or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. value and relied upon. As this Court ruled in Jaca v. People,63 a
superior cannot rely in good faith on the act of a subordinate
However, after a circumspect review of the records, the Court where the documents that would support the subordinate' s
finds Espina administratively liable, instead, for Gross Neglect action were not even in his (the superior's) possession for
of Duty, warranting his dismissal from government service.51 At examination.
the outset, it should be pointed out that the designation of the
offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an Moreover, the timing of the alleged repair and refurbishment
administrative case is not controlling, and one may be found works was suspect. The short seven (7)-day period in
guilty of another offense where the substance of the allegations December, 2007 during which the repair and refurbishment
and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt, 52 as in works were made on the LAV s should have prompted Espina
this case. Notably, the FFIB-MOLEO's supplemental complaint to doubt the veracity of the IRFs. As correctly observed by the
accused Espina with failure to exercise due diligence in signing Ombudsman, it is improbable that the repair and refurbishment
the IRFs, which is sufficient to hold him liable for Gross Neglect works on the LAVs were carried out from December 20 to 27,
of Duty.53 2007, given the magnitude of the work involved and the fact that
such period included the delivery of the LAV s for repair, the
Gross neglect of duty is defined as "[n]egligence characterized inspection and approval of the materials to be used for the
by want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a repairs, the actual repair and refurbishment, and the delivery of
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but the LA Vs to the PNP after the repair.64
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the
consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is The foregoing should not have escaped Espina's attention had
the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless he faithfully discharged the obligations attendant to his
men never fail to give to their own property." 54 In contrast, simple office.1âwphi1 Indeed, the Court has pronounced that a public
neglect of duty is the failure of an employee or official to give officer's high position imposes upon him greater responsibility
proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a and obliges him to be more circumspect in his actions and in the
"disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or discharge of his official duties.65 This particularly applies to the
indifference."55 instant controversy, especially where Espina's signature was
one of the final steps needed for the release of payment for the
As aptly observed by the CA, Espina had the obligation to procured items.66 In fact, the disbursement vouchers prepared
supervise his subordinates and see to it that they have by the Logistics Support Service (LSS)
performed their respective functions in accordance with
law.56 To recall, Espina was the Acting Chief and Head of the Finance Service were routed back to the CES of the
PNP's Management Division and, as such, had supervisory Management Division under Espina's supervision for final
powers over the departments or sections which comprise it, examination of all claims.67 With all these considerations,
namely: (a) the Internal Control and Inspection Section Espina was expected to employ diligence in ensuring that all
claims were supported by complete pertinent documents. As duties of their offices honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their
succinctly put by the CA, Espina's duty as Acting Chief was not ability.78 Unfortunately, Espina failed miserably in this respect.
merely ministerial and perfunctory as it related to the
disbursement of funds over which a great responsibility WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
attached.68 Decision dated February 27, 2014 and the Resolution dated July
15, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131114 are
More so, considering the sheer magnitude of the amount in hereby SET ASIDE. A new one is ENTERED finding
taxpayers' money involved, i.e., ₱409,740,000.00, Espina respondent Rainier A. Espina GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT
should have exercised utmost care before signing the IRFs. It is OF DUTY. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from government
of no moment that the disbursement of the ₱409,740,000.00 service with all the accessory penalties.
was spread over several transactions and not through a single
payment or that only the IRFs relating to the delivery of supplies SO ORDERED.
were allegedly presented;69 the fact remains that taxpayers'
money was spent without the corresponding goods and services
having been delivered to the government. Indeed, no rule is BUENAFLOR vs RAMIREZ
more settled than that a public office is a public trust and public
officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the FACTS: Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the Presidential
people.70 AntiGraft Commission (PAGC) appointed respondent Jose R.
Ramirez, Jr. as Executive Assistant III and concurrently
Espina cannot trivialize his role in the disbursement of funds and designated him as Assistant Accountant. On September 28,
bank on the lack of confidential written reports from his 2001, Chairman Domingo resigned,and petitioner Cesar D.
subordinates which would have prompted him to make further Buenaflor succeeded him. The petitioner terminated Ramirez as
inquiry. As aptly pointed out by petitioners, Espina was the last of the same date as Chairman Eugenio's resignation on the
person to affix his signature and, as such, had the power, if not ground that his tenure had expired by virtue of the position of
the duty, to unearth and expose anomalous or irregular Executive Assistant being personal and confidential, and,
transactions.71 Espina cannot blindly adhere to the findings and hence, co-terminous with that of the appointing authority.
opinions of his subordinates, lest he be reduced to a mere clerk
who has no authority over his subordinates and the sections he Believing that his appointment had been contractual in nature,
oversees. Ramirez sued in the RTC to declare his dismissal null and void.
The RTC rendered judgment declaring Buenaflor guilty of
The Court is not unaware of the ruling in Arias v. unlawful termination because he had not discharged his burden
Sandiganbayan72 (Arias) that heads of offices may rely on their of proving that Ramirez's employment was coterminous with that
subordinates. For the Arias doctrine to apply, however, there of Chairman Domingo, and ruling in favor of Ramirez.
must be no reason for the head of offices to go beyond the
recommendations of their subordinates,73 which is not the case Buenaflor seasonably filed his motion for reconsideration and
here. later on was denied. Buenaflor assailed the order of the RTC by
petition for certiorari in the CA, alleging that the RTC thereby
Given the amounts involved and the timing of the alleged gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
deliveries, the circumstances reasonably impose on Espina a jurisdiction. Buenaflor moved for reconsideration, but the CA
higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his denied his motion for reconsideration.
duties. Thus, he should have been prompted to make further
inquiry as to the truth of his subordinates' reports. Had he made ISSUES:
the proper inquiries, he would have discovered the non-delivery
of the procured items and the non-performance of the procured 1. Court of Appeals, in arriving its decision and resolution,
services, and prevented the unlawful disbursement. However, decided the case in accordance with law and existing
he did not do this at all. Instead, he blindly relied on the report jurisprudence?
and recommendation of his subordinates and affixed his
signature on the IRFs. Plainly, Espina acted negligently,
unmindful of the high position he occupied and the 2. Court of Appeals committed grave abused of discretion in not
responsibilities it carried, and without regard to his accountability declaring that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the
for the hundreds of millions in taxpayers' money involved. instant civil service related case, which is under the sole
jurisdiction of the CSC?
Verily, this Court has repeatedly emphasized the time-honored
rule that a "[p ]ublic office is a public trust [and] [p]ublic officers RULING:
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and 1. The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest particular action is determined by the plaintiffs allegations in the
lives."74 This high constitutional standard of conduct is not complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law
intended to be mere rhetoric and taken lightly as those in the that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.
public service are enjoined to fully comply with this standard or
run the risk of facing administrative sanctions ranging from
2. It is clarified that the CSC has jurisdiction over a case
reprimand to the extreme penalty of dismissal from the
involving a civil servant if it can be regarded as equivalent to a
service.75 Erring public officials may also be held personally
labor dispute resoluble under the Labor Code; conversely, the
liable for disbursements made in violation of law or regulation,
regular court has jurisdiction if the case can be decided under
as stated in Section 52,76 Chapter 9, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V
the general laws, such as when the case is for the recovery of
of the Administrative Code of 1987.77 Thus, public officers, as
private debts, or for the recovery of damages due to slanderous
recipients of public trust, are under obligation to perform the
remarks of the employer, or for malicious prosecution of the A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Dator. A Supplement
employees. to the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 6, 2017 was
likewise filed by his new counsel, in collaboration with the
DATOR vs CARPIO-MORALES counsel of record. Dator also filed a Motion for Clarification,
seeking clarification as to the correct penalty imposed – whether
it is 6 months suspension or 1 month and one 1 day suspension.
CSC Resolution No. 020790 clearly states the prohibition of Consequently, Dator filed before the CA a Petition for Injunction
hiring those covered under the rules on nepotism through a with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and/or
contract of service and job order. Nepotism is defined as an Temporary Restraining Order, praying for respondents to desist
appointment issued in favor of a relative within the third civil and refrain from implementing the OMB's Decision.
degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following: (1)
appointing authority; (2) recommending authority; (3) chief of the
bureau or office; and (4) person exercising immediate The CA denied the petition outright. Subsequently, the OMB
supervision over the appointee. Macandile, being the sister of denied Dator's Motion for Reconsideration. It also clarified that
Dator, is clearly within the scope of the prohibition from being the seeming conflict in the proper penalty imposable on Dator
hired under a contract of services and job order. was due to an honest oversight in the footnote of the OMB
decision, and clarified that the penalty imposed on Dator is six
months suspension without pay.
FACTS: The case stemmed from a complaint2 filed on May 2,
2016 by complainant Moises B. Villasenor against the
incumbent Mayor of Lucban, Quezon, petitioner Celso Olivier T. ISSUE: Whether the OMB was correct in ruling that Dator is
Dator, and Maria Lyncelle D. Macandile, also of Lucban, Quezon liable for simple misconduct. (YES)
for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority and nepotism. It
was alleged that in his immediately preceding term, Dator hired RULING: The OMB was correct in ruling that Dator's act of
his sister, Macandile, as Chief Administrative Officer through a issuing the Special Order No.2, Series of 2014 and Job Order
Job Order and designated her as Municipal Administrator. There that hired his sister, Macandile, as Chief Administrative Officer,
was no appointment paper that was submitted to the was irregular. As correctly noted by the OMB, the position of a
Sangguniang Bayan for the required confirmation pursuant to Municipal Administrator is unique, because, while it is
Sec. 443(d) of the Local Government Code. It was also alleged coterminous with the appointing authority and highly confidential
that Macandile lacked the qualifications of a Municipal in character, it is required that the appointee must meet the
Administrator and her Job Order stated that "the above-named qualifications enumerated under Sec. 480 of the LGC. The
hereby attests that he/she is not related within the third degree position does not fall within the confidential/personal staff
(fourth degree in case of LGUs) of consanguinity or affinity to contemplated under Section 1(e) Rule X of Revised Omnibus
the 1) hiring authority and/or 2) representatives of the hiring Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions which
agency",when in truth and in fact, she is the sister of Dator. dispenses with the eligibility and experience requirements.

In the Joint Counter-Affidavit of Dator and Macandile, they Furthermore, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) came out with
denied the charges and stated that Macandile was merely CSC Resolution No. 020790 (Policy Guidelines for Contract of
granted an authority to perform the duties and functions of an Services) as it has been made aware that the practice of hiring
administrator in the exigency and best interest of public service. personnel under contracts of service and job orders entered into
They stated that Macandile's credentials showed her between government agencies and individuals has been used
competence as she worked as a Head Nurse in Ginebra San to circumvent Civil Service rules and regulations particularly its
Miguel, Inc. from 1994 to 2005. They further alleged that the mandate on merit and fitness in public service.
position of Municipal Administrator did not exist in the
municipality's plantilla of personnel, hence, there was no The situation in this case is precisely what is being prevented by
appointment paper submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for the said resolution where the appointing authority effectively
confirmation. They also countered that the position of Municipal creates a short-cut or circumvents the law as regards the
Administrator is primarily confidential, non-career and determination of fitness or eligibility to a position, by merely
coterminous with the appointing authority and that the Job Order hiring one who would otherwise have to go through the rigorous
was executed for payroll purposes only. They submitted copies process mandated by the law, through a contract of service or
of the Job Order forms issued during the administration of the job order. CSC Resolution No. 020790 clearly states the
complainant, where a Dr. Palermo C. Salvacion was designated prohibition of hiring those covered under the rules on nepotism
as Chief Administrative Officer from 2007 to 2010. through a contract of service and job order. Nepotism is defined
as an appointment issued in favor of a relative within the third
On March 20, 2017, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:
dismissing the charges against Macandile, but finding Dator (1) appointing authority; (2) recommending authority; (3) chief of
administratively liable for Simple Misconduct. The OMB noted the bureau or office; and (4) person exercising immediate
that since the position of Municipal Administrator was not in the supervision over the appointee. Macandile, being the sister of
plantilla, Dator should have requested the Sangguniang Bayan Dator, is clearly within the scope of the prohibition from being
to create the said position through an ordinance. The OMB ruled hired under a contract of services and job order.
that in the issuance of the Job Order and S.O. No. 2, Series of
2014, Dator exhibited reprehensible conduct. It also found Given the foregoing, Dator was thus properly held liable for
Dator's act of affixing his signature in the Job Order, which simple misconduct.
contained an attestation that Macandile is not related within the
fourth degree of consanguinity to the hiring authority, despite
knowledge of its falsity, is a clear transgression of the norms and
standards expected of him as a government official.