GR 153022; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153022 ; April 10, 2006
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. AGUSTIN A. ZOZOBRADO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Agustin A. Zozobrado, a permanent pilot for the National Power Corporation (NPC), was dropped from the rolls in August 1998 after receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings for the periods covering January-June 1997 and July-October 1997. The NPC based its action on Civil Service rules allowing the dropping from the rolls of an employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings after due notice. Zozobrado appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially dismissed his appeal and affirmed his dismissal.
Zozobrado then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. He contended that the procedural requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls were not followed. Specifically, he argued he was not given the mandatory written notice and warning after his first unsatisfactory rating for January-June 1997 within the required 30-day period, which is a prerequisite for a valid second rating to justify dismissal. The Court of Appeals granted his petition, reversed the CSC, and ordered his reinstatement with backwages, finding a lack of due process.
ISSUE
Whether the National Power Corporation validly dropped Agustin Zozobrado from the rolls in compliance with the procedural due process requirements of the Civil Service Rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied NPC’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the strict construction of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12, s. 1994, which governs dropping from the rolls due to unsatisfactory performance. The rule mandates that an employee must be informed in writing of a first unsatisfactory rating within 30 days from the end of the rating period and sufficiently warned that a second unsatisfactory rating warrants separation. This notice must contain sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation.
The Court found that NPC failed to comply with these mandatory requisites. The alleged notice for the first semester of 1997 was not given within the 30-day period; a purported verbal notice was deemed insufficient. Furthermore, the shift from a semester-based rating system to a quarterly one for the second rating period (July-October 1997) appeared irregular and arbitrary, especially as Zozobrado was subsequently rated on a semester basis again and received a “very satisfactory” rating after his transfer. The Court also noted that the performance ratings seemed questionable, as a Grievance Committee recommendation to review them considering Zozobrado’s extensive flying hours was blocked by his superior. Consequently, the dropping from the rolls was executed with a patent lack of due process, rendering the dismissal invalid.