G.R. No. 181704 ; December 6, 2011
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA), represented by its National President Mr. Romulo A. Pagulayan, Petitioner, vs. HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance, HON. NAPOLEON L. MORALES, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, HON. LILIAN B. HEFTI, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Respondents.

FACTS

Republic Act No. 9335 (the Attrition Act of 2005) was enacted to optimize revenue collection by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). It establishes a system of rewards and sanctions, creating a Rewards and Incentives Fund from excess collections and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board in each agency. The Boards are tasked with prescribing rules for fund allocation and setting criteria for removing officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of targets. Its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were approved and published in 2006. In 2008, BOC officials, pursuant to R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR, began disseminating “Collection District Performance Contracts” for rank-and-file employees to sign. The contract required the signatory to accept an allocated revenue collection target and commit to meeting it, agreeing to voluntarily submit to the provisions on removal if the target is not met, with due consideration of relevant factors. The petitioner, BOCEA, an association of BOC rank-and-file employees, contended that the revenue targets were impossible to meet due to government policies like reduced tariffs, natural calamities, and other economic factors. BOCEA alleged that employees were coerced and threatened with reassignment, reshuffling, or floating status if they refused to sign the Performance Contracts. Officers, including its National President, faced harassment and threats. After failed dialogues and a written request to desist from implementation, BOCEA filed this direct petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to declare R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR unconstitutional and to enjoin their implementation permanently, arguing they violate the constitutional rights to due process and security of tenure.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 9335 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional for violating the right to security of tenure and the right to due process of the employees of the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR.
1. On Security of Tenure: The guarantee of security of tenure is not a guarantee of perpetual employment. R.A. No. 9335 provides a valid ground for dismissal germane to the purpose of the law—the efficient collection of revenue. The law does not specify that failure to meet the target alone is the sole ground for termination. Section 7 of R.A. No. 9335 requires the Board to consider relevant factors affecting collection performance, such as economic difficulties from natural calamities, force majeure, or other economic causes, before any termination. This built-in consideration of relevant factors prevents arbitrary dismissal and ensures termination is based on reasonable standards related to an employee’s performance and the actual conditions affecting it, thus complying with substantive due process.
2. On Due Process: The law and its IRR satisfy the requirements of procedural due process. The Revenue Performance Evaluation Board, composed of high-ranking government officials and representatives from the rank-and-file and officials, is tasked with setting the detailed criteria and procedures for removal. The process involves evaluation and review by this Board before any termination is made. The “immediately executory” clause in the law regarding the Board’s termination decision pertains to its enforceability and does not dispense with the requirement of a prior hearing or investigation. The Court presumes that the Board will act in accordance with law and observe due process in its proceedings. The Performance Contract referenced by the petitioner is merely a mechanism to cascade targets and does not itself constitute the grounds for dismissal; the grounds and procedures remain those set by the Board under the law.
The Court found no constitutional infirmity in the challenged law and its implementing rules.