G.R. No. 102232 March 9, 1994
VIOLETA ALDOVINO, ALI ALIBASA, FELIX BALINO, DIONISIO BALLESTEROS, JOSE N. BALEIN, JR., FREDDIE CAUTON, JANE CORROS, ROBERTO CRUZ, TRINIDAD DACUMOS, ANGELITA DIMAPILIS, ANDREA ESTONILO, EFREN FONTANILLA, MARY PAZ FRIGILLANA, MANUEL HENSON, SAMUEL HIPOL, MERLENE IBALIO, MAGDALENA JAMILLA, ALEXANDER JUSTINIANI, ROMULO MIRADOR, JULIO MIRAVITE, DANTE NAGTALON, CLARITA NAMUCO, ALICIA ORBITA, ANGELITA PUCAN, MYRNA P. SALVADOR, LIBRADA TANTAY, and ARACELI J. DE VEYRA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY RAFAEL ALUNAN III, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM and SECRETARY GUILLERMO M. CARAGUE, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, respondents.

JOSEPHINE G. ANDAYA, ROSALINDA T. ATIENZA, JOSE M. BALDOVINO, JR., ASUNCION C. BRIONES, RIZALINA P. ESPIRITU, MARIBELLE A. GARCIA, ABDULIA T. LANDINGIN, FLORITA O. OCAMPO, ROLANDO SISON, LOURDES V. TAMAYO, and ROLANDO VALDEZ, intervenors.
ERLINDA PIZA, ELEONOR SAGNIT, FIDEL SEVIDAL, CONCEPCION TIMARIO, ELOISA ALONZO, ANGELITO DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO C. CAGASCA, LYNIE ARCENAS, MARIA EMMA JASMIN, ALFONSO ANGELES, MACACUNA PANGANDAMAN, ROSALITA MAUNA, ROMEO PADILLA, ASCENSION PADILLA, CRISPULO PADILLA, VIRGILIO DEJERO, MEDARDO ILAO, ROSITA SOMERA, ARMANDO CRUZ, CATALINO DABU, FRANCISCO VILLARAIZ, NORMA JUMILLA, KENNEDY BASA, and ARMANDO MENDOZA, intervenors.
ANICITA S. BALUYUT, ANTONINO D. EDRALIN, EVELYN A. ENRIQUEZ, MA. VICTORIA L. JACOBO, DANIEL M. MANAMTAM, JESSIE C. MANRIQUE, ENCARNACION T. RADAZA, and MARIO P. RUIVIVAR, intervenors.
AMOR T. MEDINA and FELIX L. POLIQUIT, intervenors.

FACTS

Pursuant to Section 29 of Executive Order No. 120 which reorganized the Ministry of Tourism (MOT, now DOT), the MOT issued various office orders and memoranda declaring all positions vacant and effecting the separation of many employees. This led to previous cases (Mandani v. Gonzales, Abrogar v. Garrucho, Jr., and Arnaldo v. Garrucho, Jr.) where the Supreme Court declared such office orders and memoranda null and void and ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with back wages. Herein petitioners and intervenors, claiming their plight is similar to those in the prior cases, seek the same relief of reinstatement and payment of back wages. Public respondents, except for a few named individuals, do not dispute that petitioners and intervenors were separated pursuant to the void office orders and memoranda. However, they oppose the petition on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, laches, and potential disruption of the current organizational set-up.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners and intervenors are entitled to reinstatement and back wages, having been separated from service pursuant to the same office orders and memoranda declared void in the prior Mandani, Abrogar, and Arnaldo cases.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The decisive factor is the determination that the separation of herein petitioners and intervenors was pursuant to the same office orders and memoranda declared void in Mandani. The defense of laches was rejected. The Court found that equity must favor the petitioners and intervenors who were unjustly injured by the unlawful acts of public respondents. They cannot be deemed to have slept on their rights as they protested their termination through the Department of Labor and Employment, the Civil Service Commission, and demonstrations. They also made representations with the DOT for reinstatement following the prior decisions. The Court cited Cristobal v. Melchor, stating that a person similarly situated to plaintiffs in a prior suit can rely on its outcome without intervening, and that equity demands complete justice. The matter of prescription was deemed waived as it was never raised by the government. The Court also rejected the argument of potential disruption to the current organizational set-up, citing Carino v. ACCFA, which held that the government must bear the consequences of its illegal acts. Regarding the few individuals contested by public respondents (Samuel Hipol, Jane Corros, Myrna Salvador, Concepcion Timario, Efren Fontanilla, Ascension Padilla, and Evelyn Enriquez), the Court found the evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties and the validity of their appointments, and thus included them in the grant of relief. The respondents were ordered to reinstate petitioners and intervenors to their former positions or equivalent ones without loss of seniority rights and to pay them back salaries computed under the new staffing pattern from the dates of their invalid termination at rates not lower than their former salaries, subject to reimbursement of any benefits received from the government by reason of their termination through reasonable salary deduction.