G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992
Edgardo Dytiapco, petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission, Office of the Press Secretary and Director Bureau of Broadcast Services, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgardo Dytiapco, a Professional Career Service Eligible, was permanently appointed as Junior Newscaster in the Bureau of Broadcast Services (BBS) on July 28, 1977, and was later promoted to Senior Newscaster. Following the reorganization of the Office of the Press Secretary, including the BBS, under Executive Order No. 297, petitioner received a letter on December 28, 1987, informing him that his services would be considered only until January 31, 1988, due to a limited number of positions in the new staffing pattern. Petitioner appealed his dismissal to the Press Secretary and protested the adverse rating given by the Evaluation Committee. Pending the outcome of his appeal and due to dire financial straits, petitioner filed a claim for and received separation and terminal leave benefits on May 5, 1988. On May 12, 1988, seven days after receiving the benefits, he wrote to the Civil Service Commission appealing for reinstatement, arguing his termination was without valid cause as a permanent civil service eligible. The Civil Service Commission dismissed his appeal on June 28, 1989, citing his receipt of separation benefits and relying on an earlier similar case (Teofilo Pa-alan). His motion for reconsideration was denied on November 27, 1989.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner’s receipt of separation and terminal leave pay rendered his appeal for reinstatement closed and terminated.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission. The Court held that petitioner’s acceptance of separation benefits, dictated by economic necessity, did not constitute abandonment of his appeal for reinstatement, as evidenced by his continuous protests and appeals before and after receiving the benefits. His dismissal was not for a valid cause under Republic Act No. 6656 , as there was no evidence his position was abolished, rendered redundant, or merged. The reason given for termination was not true, and his removal violated his right to security of tenure. The Commission’s reliance on the Teofilo Pa-alan case was misplaced, as it deprived petitioner of due process and added a ground for removal not contemplated by law. The Court ordered petitioner’s reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority and with full back pay, and directed him to return the separation and terminal leave benefits he received.