GR 168999; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168999 ; April 30, 2008
RAUL A. DAZA, in his capacity as Governor of Northern Samar, petitioner, vs. RONAN P. LUGO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ronan P. Lugo received a permanent appointment as Sanitation Inspector I on March 7, 2001, which was approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Provincial Field Office. Petitioner Governor Raul A. Daza, upon assuming office, issued Memorandum No. 352-01 directing department heads to evaluate probationary employees and submit Performance Evaluation Reports to determine their qualification for permanent status. Lugo’s immediate supervisor failed to submit the required evaluation report. Subsequently, on September 5, 2001, Governor Daza terminated Lugo’s probationary service for unsatisfactory conduct.
Lugo appealed to the CSC Regional Office, which declared the termination not in order and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. Governor Daza appealed to the CSC Central Office, which reversed the Regional Office and upheld the termination. Lugo then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Regional Office’s order, finding the termination lacked just cause and due process. Governor Daza elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Ronan P. Lugo’s termination from the civil service was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The termination was invalid as it was without just cause and violated due process. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional and statutory protection of security of tenure for civil service employees who have attained permanent status. Lugo’s appointment was permanent and had been approved by the CSC; thus, he could only be removed for cause as provided by law and after due process.
The Court found that the sole basis for the termination—unsatisfactory conduct—was unsupported by any evidence. Governor Daza’s termination memorandum cited no supporting documents, such as a Performance Evaluation Report or any proof of inefficiency. The directive to evaluate was addressed to department heads, not to Lugo personally. The failure to submit the report was attributable to Lugo’s supervisor, not to Lugo himself. Consequently, the termination lacked the factual foundation required by CSC rules, constituting an arbitrary exercise of power. The reinstatement with back salaries was therefore proper to remedy the unlawful dismissal.