G.R. No. L-28801. June 25, 1980.
JOSE V. RICAMARA, petitioner-appellee, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, MANUEL CUDIAMAT and JOSE ERESTAIN, in their capacities as City Treasurer and City Auditor, respectively, of the City of Manila, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose V. Ricamara passed the patrolman examination and was issued a permanent appointment to the Manila Police Force. In his application, he had truthfully disclosed a prior conviction for the offense of anti-littering, for which he paid a fine of five pesos, and submitted the corresponding disposition paper. He also submitted various clearances and underwent police training. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Civil Service, without conducting any inquiry or hearing, issued an order cancelling Ricamara’s civil service eligibility and terminating his services. The Commissioner’s action was based on the ground that Ricamara had a previous criminal record, notwithstanding the Mayor’s finding that no irregularity was committed in his application. Ricamara filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to annul the Commissioner’s order and to compel the payment of his salaries.

ISSUE

Whether the Commissioner of Civil Service acted without due process of law in cancelling Ricamara’s civil service eligibility and ordering the termination of his services without a prior investigation and hearing.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision setting aside the Commissioner’s order. The legal logic is firmly rooted in the constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure and due process for civil service employees. Section 32 of the Civil Service Law ( Republic Act No. 2260 ) explicitly provides that no civil service employee shall be removed except for cause and after due process, which includes the right to a formal investigation, to be heard, and to present evidence. The Court, citing precedents like Abaya vs. Villegas and Aguilar vs. Valencia, held that the peremptory cancellation of eligibility and termination of services without affording the employee an opportunity to be heard constitutes a blatant denial of this procedural safeguard. The Court emphasized that “a civil service employee should be heard before he is condemned.” Since Ricamara was denied this fundamental right, the Commissioner’s actions were null and void. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the ancillary issue of whether the minor anti-littering conviction involved moral turpitude or constituted a disqualifying criminal record under applicable rules, as the procedural defect was dispositive. The judgment directed Ricamara’s reinstatement and the payment of his accrued salaries.