G.R. No. 82421 , 83019, 83470, 83654, 84056, 84212, 84865, 86038 September 26, 1990
ANICETO SIETE, et al., petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT LUIS T. SANTOS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions involve the removal of various local officials and employees following the reorganization of the Department of Local Government (DLG). In G.R. No. 82421 , Vice-Mayor Aniceto Siete challenged the Secretary’s memorandum designating another as Officer-in-Charge of Tangub City, arguing he should succeed under the Local Government Code. In G.R. No. 83019, petitioners Bayan Balt and Diego Palomares, Jr., appointed to the Regional Autonomous Government in 1986, were ousted by new designees in 1987 and 1988. Other petitions, including those of Legal Counsel Jacob Montesa (G.R. No. 83470) and several other DLG employees, similarly contested their removal and replacement by new appointees during the department’s reorganization under Executive Order No. 262.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the removals of the petitioners from their positions, effected under the guise of the DLG’s reorganization, were valid and done in good faith.

RULING

The Court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners. The validity of the reorganization hinges on good faith, as established in Dario v. Mison. A removal is invalid if it is merely a guise to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of permanent appointees. For the cases involving career civil service officers like Montesa, the Court found the reorganization was not undertaken in good faith. Their removal and replacement were not justified by a genuine reorganization effort but appeared to be a pretext for installing new personnel without cause. Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement. However, for the local officials like Siete and the autonomous region appointees like Balt and Palomares, their petitions were dismissed for being moot and academic. Their positions were primarily political or co-terminous in nature, not protected by the same permanent civil service status. Their claims were effectively superseded by subsequent electoral processes or the expiration of the terms of the offices to which they were appointed. The Court emphasized that while the President has broad reorganization authority, it must be exercised within constitutional bounds, particularly respecting the security of tenure of career service employees. The absence of a bona fide reorganization plan renders the removal of such permanent employees unlawful.