GR 98027; (October, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98027 October 7, 1994
JOSE A. ABAYA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents. JUAN BERGONIO, ET AL., intervenors.
FACTS
Petitioners were employees of the Department of Agriculture in Pangasinan. Following the reorganization under Executive Order No. 116, the position of Municipal Agriculture and Food Officer (MAFO) was abolished and replaced with Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO). Petitioners, including former MAFOs, took the required evaluation examination, qualified for the Personnel Placement List (PPL), and were appointed MAOs effective July 1, 1988. However, unsuccessful aspirants protested, leading to a second evaluation by the Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB). The RAB’s resolution modified the PPL rankings, resulting in the exclusion and subsequent ouster of petitioners from their MAO positions. Their appeal to the Civil Service Commission was dismissed, prompting this petition for certiorari. Several incumbent MAOs whose rankings were upheld moved to intervene.
ISSUE
Whether the reorganization process that resulted in the removal of petitioners from their positions was valid.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, applying the precedents set in Pari-an v. Civil Service Commission and Sison v. Civil Service Commission. The Court found the instant case to be on all fours with these prior rulings. In Pari-an and Sison, the Court had already declared invalid the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture for non-compliance with the guidelines in E.O. No. 17, the constitutional provision on security of tenure, and Republic Act No. 6656 (the law governing government reorganizations). The Court had specifically held that the removal of former MAFOs through a contested evaluation and placement process was invalid. Consequently, the Court ordered the reinstatement of affected employees to their former positions or their equivalents under the new staffing pattern. Following this settled doctrine, the Court ruled that the former MAFOs among the petitioners—Jose Abaya, Aniceto O. Cada, Jr., Presidio M. Cariño, and Ernesto J. Garcia—should be appointed to the MAO positions. The other petitioners were ordered returned to their positions prior to the reorganization or their equivalents. The Court noted that only petitioner Bonifacio S. Molina actively pursued the case to its conclusion, but the ruling on the merits applied to the valid claims established by the precedent.