GR 95915; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95915; August 16, 1991
MITA PARDO DE TAVERA, as Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Population Commission, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and GUALBERTO AMABLE JR., respondents.
FACTS
The Population Commission (POPCOM) underwent reorganization pursuant to Executive Order No. 123. The position of Population Programs Coordinator was reclassified to POPCOM Regional Director. The POPCOM Board evaluated its personnel for reappointment under the new structure. Gualberto Amable Jr., the incumbent Population Programs Coordinator for Region XI, was not reappointed. The Board cited his lack of the prescribed qualifications for the new Regional Director position and considered his administrative record. Amable had previously been found guilty in an administrative case for dishonesty involving the improper handling of government funds, for which he served a 15-day suspension.
Amable appealed his non-reappointment to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, in its resolution, upheld the appointment of another as Regional Director but ordered Amable’s reinstatement to a comparable position. The CSC reasoned that Amable had validly disputed the dishonesty charge and noted another graft charge against him had been dismissed. POPCOM Chairman Mita Pardo de Tavera filed this petition to annul the CSC’s reinstatement order.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Gualberto Amable Jr. to a comparable position in the POPCOM.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the CSC resolutions. The Court held there was no grave abuse of discretion in the POPCOM Board’s decision not to reappoint Amable. The legal logic is twofold. First, Amable undisputedly lacked the minimum qualifications for the reclassified position of Regional Director and even for his former position, as he did not possess the required bachelor’s degree. Second, and more critically, his moral fitness for public service was rightly questioned. The administrative finding of dishonesty, involving his personal custody and failure to properly account for government funds for over six months, revealed a serious defect in moral character. The light penalty of a 15-day suspension does not negate the gravity of the misconduct or the resultant unfitness.
His separation was justified under the reorganization guidelines, specifically Executive Order No. 17, which allows separation where an incumbent is unfit for the service or where replacement is in the interest of the service. There was no showing of bad faith in the non-reappointment. Consequently, the CSC’s directive for reinstatement constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it disregarded these valid grounds for separation in a bona fide reorganization.