G.R. No. 143289 November 11, 2004
Cresencia L. Tan, petitioner, vs. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cresencia Tan was an Accountant I in the Siquijor Highway Engineering District. In 1982, she was suspended pending criminal and administrative charges for estafa through falsification and dishonesty. Meanwhile, Executive Order No. 710 abolished the old Ministry of Public Works and created the Ministry of Public Works and Highways. Section 10 of the E.O. authorized the new Minister to appoint personnel from the abolished offices; those not appointed were deemed laid off. Due to her pending charges, Tan’s name was excluded from the list of prospective appointees. Her protest was rejected.
The Sandiganbayan later acquitted Tan in 1993. She then sought reinstatement to her former position and payment of back salaries from her 1982 suspension. The DPWH denied her request, stating she had been validly laid off due to the reorganization and that her former position was abolished and filled by another appointee, who had since resigned. The Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld the DPWH’s denial.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Tan is entitled to reinstatement and back salaries following her acquittal, considering the abolition of her former position under a government reorganization.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the valid abolition of office and the nature of reorganization appointments. Executive Order No. 710 constituted a bona fide reorganization. The power of the appointing authority under Section 10 to select personnel from among employees of the abolished ministries is discretionary. Exclusion from the new staffing pattern due to pending criminal and administrative charges was a valid exercise of this discretion. Tan’s lay-off was a direct consequence of the reorganization, not her suspension.
Her subsequent acquittal did not create an automatic right to reinstatement because the position of Accountant I she previously occupied had been lawfully abolished. Reinstatement under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 presupposes the continued existence of the office. The provisional dismissal of the administrative case against her, without prejudice to reopening if she re-entered government service, further weakened her claim. Entitlement to back salaries during suspension is contingent on a finding of unjustified suspension and reinstatement to an existing position, conditions not met here. The reorganization resulted in a valid termination of her official relation, and her claim for reappointment was a privilege, not a right.