G.R. No. L-38565 November 15, 1974
Bayani Sarmiento, et al., petitioners, vs. Constantino Nolasco, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, who were provisional employees, sought modification of a portion of a Supreme Court decision dated September 16, 1974. The decision ordered their reinstatement as permanent employees under Section 18 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6040 if they qualified; otherwise, they were to be considered as having held office only until August 4, 1969, the date R.A. 6040 took effect. This law abolished provisional appointments. Petitioners argued this clause was erroneous.
They contended that R.A. 6040, while abolishing provisional appointments and providing for the automatic conversion to permanent status for qualified incumbents, did not automatically remove unqualified provisional employees from service. They asserted that such an interpretation would create a vacuum in government. Their motion relied heavily on Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 1971, which provided guidelines for implementing Section 18 of R.A. 6040. This circular, issued nearly two years after the law’s effectivity, outlined a review process for provisional appointments and allowed incumbents to hold over pending such review.

ISSUE

Whether the abolition of provisional appointments under R.A. No. 6040 resulted in the automatic separation from service of provisional employees who did not automatically qualify for permanent status under Section 18 of the same Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for modification. The Court held that R.A. 6040 did not effect the automatic separation of all provisional appointees. The legal logic centered on the integrated interpretation of the statute and the authoritative administrative guidelines. Section 18’s provision for the automatic conversion of qualified provisional appointments to permanent status logically presupposed an individual review process to determine such qualification. This review could not be instantaneous upon the law’s effectivity.
Consequently, the Civil Service Commission’s Memorandum Circular No. 4, which provided a uniform procedure for this review, carried great weight as a contemporaneous executive interpretation of the legislative intent. The circular explicitly allowed provisional appointees to remain in service as holdover employees pending the review and final action on their appointments. Denying petitioners this same procedural right, especially due to the pendency of the litigation concerning their status, would constitute a denial of due process and equal protection. The dispositive portion was thus modified to state that unqualified petitioners should be considered as having continued in office as holdover employees from August 4, 1969, until their appointments were reviewed and legally terminated.