AM 500 Mj; (August, 1974) (Digest)
A.M. No. 500-MJ. August 29, 1974. ANITA A. BARBERO, complainant, vs. JUDGE FAUSTINO H. PARAGUYA, respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Municipal Judge Faustino M. Paraguya, upon assuming office as Acting City Judge of Surigao on November 13, 1972, immediately dismissed complainant Anita A. Barbero from her position as Court Interpreter. His dismissal letter cited her temporary appointment and invoked Republic Act No. 2260 and Civil Service rules, aligning the action with the policy of the New Society. Barbero had originally been appointed on a provisional basis in 1966. However, on September 9, 1972, the former City Judge, Jose L. Gonzales, issued her a new appointment changing her status from provisional to permanent, following her having qualified in a civil service examination. This permanent appointment was attested by the Civil Service Commission on November 23, 1972.
Despite being shown this permanent appointment and subsequently receiving direct orders from higher judicial authorities—first a telegram from the Assistant Judicial Superintendent on December 27, 1972, and later a letter from Undersecretary of Justice Efren I. Plana on January 5, 1973—instructing him to allow Barbero to report back to duty, Judge Paraguya refused. He persisted in his refusal, even threatening Barbero with more drastic action if she insisted, and only relented and reinstated her after receiving Undersecretary Plana’s explicit directive.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Faustino M. Paraguya is administratively liable for illegally dismissing complainant Anita A. Barbero and for defying orders from superior authorities for her reinstatement.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his dismissal of Barbero to be a clear abuse of authority. The legal logic centers on the security of tenure of civil service employees and the validity of Barbero’s appointment. The Court rejected the respondent’s defense that Barbero’s dismissal was legal because her appointment was merely temporary and she was not an eligible. The records established that her provisional appointment in 1966 was validly converted to a permanent one by the outgoing City Judge on September 9, 1972, while he was still fully authorized to do so. The subsequent attestation by the Civil Service Commission on November 23, 1972, did not invalidate the appointment; it merely confirmed its permanent status effective from a later date.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that even employees under provisional status enjoy protection. Their employment cannot be terminated arbitrarily by the appointing power but only by the Civil Service Commission through the certification of an appropriate eligible, except during the probationary period for cause. No such certification occurred here. The respondent’s unilateral dismissal was therefore illegal. His subsequent defiance of explicit reinstatement orders from the Department of Justice constituted a blatant disregard of lawful directives and aggravated his misconduct. While he eventually complied, his initial actions demonstrated a prejudgment and an abuse of judicial authority. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Judge Faustino M. Paraguya and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.