G.R. No. 157139; October 19, 2011
CARLOS COTIANGCO, LUCIO SALAS, EDITHA SALONOY, MA. FILIPINA CALDERON, ROSALINDA ABILAR, MEDARDA LARIBA, TITO GUTIERREZ, BENJAMIN LUCIANO, MYRNA FILAMOR AND MONIANA NAJARRO, Petitioners, vs. THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were permanent public health workers in the Biliran Provincial Health Office. On October 23, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 102, approving a revised structure and staffing pattern for the provincial government. Pursuant to this, then Governor Danilo Parilla issued Executive Order (EO) No. 98-07, dated November 4, 1998, declaring all positions in the provincial government abolished except those of the Provincial Treasurer and all elective positions. This was revoked by EO No. 98-08, which declared “all positions under the new staffing pattern vacant” and directed all permanent employees to submit their applications within fifteen days. Petitioners filed a suit for Prohibition to question EO No. 98-08. A Personnel Placement Committee was created to screen applicants. Petitioners failed or refused to apply for any position under the new pattern, claiming it would be inconsistent with their pending suit and arguing that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules, there should be a screening of all existing employees, not just applicants. As a result of the reorganization, petitioners’ specific positions were excluded or abolished. They received termination notices dated January 12, 1999. Their appeal to the governor was denied. They then appealed to the CSC, which dismissed their appeal via Resolution No. 000894 dated March 30, 2000, finding the reorganization lawful and not tainted with bad faith, noting it resulted in a significant decrease in positions and that petitioners’ positions were duplications. The CSC also found the governor had implemented a procedure for reorganization. The CSC denied their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC resolution. Petitioners elevated the case, citing companion CSC cases where other employees were reinstated due to procedural violations in the reorganization.

ISSUE

1. Whether the reorganization was done in bad faith.
2. Whether petitioners were denied due process when they were not screened and evaluated for possible appointment to new positions.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition.
1. On Bad Faith: Petitioners failed to show the reorganization was done in bad faith. Good faith is presumed, and the burden of proving bad faith lies with the party alleging it. Petitioners claimed the reorganization was politically motivated (as they were appointees of the former governor, a political enemy of the incumbent) and pointed to alleged excessive purchases and hiring. However, the provincial government and the CSC established that reorganization was necessary because personnel had increased from 162 in 1990 to 381 in 1998, aiming to reduce personnel services costs and reallocate funds to development projects, medicines, and infrastructure. The Court found petitioners did not adduce sufficient concrete evidence to establish bad faith as defined under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 (e.g., a significant increase in positions, abolition of an office and creation of one with substantially the same functions, replacement by less qualified persons). The reorganization resulted in a decrease, not an increase, in positions.
2. On Due Process: Petitioners were not denied due process. The governor implemented a procedure that included information dissemination, committee creation, publication of the new pattern, invitation to apply, and issuance of non-reappointment notices. Petitioners’ failure to apply was their own voluntary act, as they chose not to participate, believing it would compromise their prohibition case. The Court ruled that petitioners cannot invoke denial of due process arising from their own refusal to participate in the application process. Their argument that all employees should be automatically screened regardless of application finds no support in the specific context of this reorganization implemented via the executive orders.