G.R. No. 94125 March 3, 1993
MAYOR JESUS MIGUEL YULO, REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, APOLONIO A. ELASIGUE, AND TEOFILO G. MAMPLATA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On November 24, 1986, private respondent Apolonio A. Elasigue, the Officer-in-Charge of the Municipality of Calamba, Laguna, terminated the services of private respondents Teofilo Mamplata and forty-three other municipal employees. The termination was based on the reorganization and approval of a new staffing pattern for the municipality. The separated employees assailed this action before the Inter-Agency Review Committee created under Executive Order No. 17. The Committee, finding that the dismissals were not made pursuant to Executive Order No. 17 and that there was no showing the reorganization was undertaken to circumvent the statute, referred the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission. Pending the MSPB’s disposition, Elasigue lost the 1988 mayoralty election to petitioner Jesus Miguel Yulo. The MSPB found insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the employees and ordered the reinstatement of Mamplata and twenty-eight others with payment of backwages by the municipality. Petitioner Yulo, as the new mayor, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission affirmed the MSPB decision. Upon a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner, the Commission upheld its ruling but reduced the number of employees to be reinstated to twenty-one, as some had been re-employed and two had died. The Commission also ordered payment of backwages to the deceased employees up to the time of their death. Petitioner filed this petition to set aside the Commission’s resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the removal of private respondents Mamplata, et al. from office due to the reorganization and approval of a new staffing pattern of the municipal government of Calamba is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. The removal of private respondents was not valid. The Court held that the termination was not effected pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the Freedom Constitution or Executive Order No. 17, as the Inter-Agency Review Committee had explicitly refused to take cognizance of the case on that ground. The reorganization itself did not serve as a license to separate career employees whimsically and without observing prescribed priorities and a fair evaluation. The MSPB found no sufficient evidence to prove any guilt or cause for dismissal against the employees at the time of their termination; petitioner’s belated submissions regarding “questionable integrity” were insufficient. The Court also noted that while the reorganization decreased the total number of positions, the number of regular employees actually increased due to new appointments, and the separated permanent employees enjoyed a preference for reappointment. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim that the employees were estopped by filing separation clearances and accepting benefits, noting that receipt of benefits does not preclude contesting termination. Finally, the Court held that the consequent liability for backwages falls upon the Municipality of Calamba, not the personal liability of former OIC Elasigue, as he acted in his official capacity and there was no proof of malice or bad faith. The Municipality was ordered to reinstate the twenty personnel named in the CSC Resolution and pay their backwages equivalent to five years, less any terminal pay received.