GR 87211; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87211 , 90044, 91547, 91730, 94518; March 5, 1991
JOVENCIO L. MAYOR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 6715 , which reorganized the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The provision declared vacant all positions of Commissioners, Executive Labor Arbiters, and Labor Arbiters, allowing incumbents to remain only in a holdover capacity until their successors were appointed and qualified. The petitioners were various NLRC officials, including Commissioners, Labor Arbiters, the Executive Director, and the Deputy Executive Director, who were either removed or faced removal from their positions as a direct result of this statutory declaration of vacancy. They argued that the law effectively removed them from office without cause and without due process, violating their constitutional right to security of tenure.
ISSUE
Whether Section 35 of Republic Act No. 6715 , in declaring the subject positions vacant and operating to remove the incumbents, is unconstitutional for violating the security of tenure of career civil service officers.
RULING
Yes, Section 35 of R.A. No. 6715 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the provision constituted a removal of the petitioners from their offices without just cause and without due process, in violation of their constitutional right to security of tenure. The Court distinguished between a valid reorganization, which may abolish offices, and an invalid removal disguised as one. Here, the law did not abolish the positions of Commissioners and Labor Arbiters; it merely declared them vacant and authorized their refilling. This was a clear legislative device to replace the incumbents without the necessity of charging them with any cause or granting them a hearing. The petitioners, as career civil servants appointed for fixed terms, possessed a vested right to security of tenure. Their removal could only be for causes specified by law and with due process. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the illegally removed petitioners to their former positions or their equivalents, with full back wages and benefits. The ruling affirmed that security of tenure is a fundamental constitutional guarantee that cannot be circumvented by a legislative declaration of vacancy.