G.R. Nos. 226634-44. March 06, 2019
SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioner, Santiago G. Barcelona, Jr., was the Municipal Mayor of Escalante, Negros Occidental when it was converted into a city by virtue of Republic Act No. 9014 . Following this reorganization, several employees—Edna A. Abibas, Emerson Bermejo, Rodolfo Pritos, Rodolfo Api, Norma Jose, Noel Dueñas, and others—alleged they were unlawfully dismissed from their permanent positions. Consequently, the petitioner was charged with eleven counts of violating Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 , which protects the security of tenure of civil service employees during government reorganizations. The Informations uniformly alleged that the petitioner, with deliberate intent, dismissed the employees without valid cause, due notice, or hearing, and refused to reinstate them despite demand.
The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner. It found that the reorganization was a mere pretext for the illegal termination of the employees, who were permanent civil servants entitled to security of tenure. The court rejected the petitioner’s defense that the employees were merely not reappointed, ruling that their removal without cause and due process constituted a dismissal under the law. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding criminal liability and that the employees were not removed but were simply not reappointed following the city’s conversion.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioner of eleven counts of violating Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 for unlawfully dismissing permanent employees during the reorganization of the Municipality of Escalante into a city.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the protection of security of tenure during a bona fide government reorganization under R.A. No. 6656 . The Court clarified that a reorganization is not a license for arbitrary removal. For a removal to be valid, it must be for a lawful cause under Section 2 of the law, such as incompetence, misconduct, or a resulting redundancy in positions, and must comply with due process. The Court found the petitioner’s act of not reappointing the employees was, in substance, an illegal dismissal.
The reorganization in Escalante City was deemed a “mere window dressing” or a subterfuge, as the employees—holding low-salaried positions—were terminated without being informed of any reason and without a hearing. Their permanent status entitled them to remain in the service unless separated for a valid cause. The petitioner’s failure to prove any such lawful cause for their non-reappointment, coupled with the lack of due process, established the criminal liability under R.A. No. 6656 . The Court emphasized that the law aims to prevent precisely this type of abuse where reorganization is used as a guise to circumvent the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Thus, the Sandiganbayan’s findings of fact and application of the law were sustained.