G.R. No. L-44486 October 31, 1984
Alexis C. Gandionco, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alexis Gandionco was a Fishery Agent appointed in 1967. From September 1971, he took successive vacation and sick leaves, culminating in an application for a 366-day sick leave from December 22, 1971, to December 21, 1972, supported by medical certificates citing “anxiety reaction” and advising indefinite rest. His physician certified his full recovery in June 1972, but Gandionco did not report for work or notify his office of his recovery.
Following the declaration of Martial Law, Presidential Decree No. 6 and Letters of Instruction Nos. 14 and 14-A were issued to facilitate government reorganization and remove undesirable personnel. Pursuant to a directive from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, respondent Ex-Commissioner Andres M. Mane notified Gandionco by letter dated November 20, 1972, received on November 28, 1972, that he was summarily separated from the service for incompetence effective upon receipt. Gandionco sought reconsideration but did not appeal the dismissal to the Civil Service Commission.

ISSUE

Whether the summary dismissal of petitioner Gandionco from government service, without a formal hearing, was lawful under Presidential Decree No. 6 and related issuances.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was lawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the specific provisions of Presidential Decree No. 6 and Letters of Instruction Nos. 14 and 14-A, which were issued as part of the government’s reorganization under Martial Law and formed part of the law of the land. Section 3(c) of P.D. No. 6 explicitly allows summary proceedings and immediate removal without formal investigation when the respondent is “notoriously undesirable.”
The Court found Gandionco’s conduct rendered him notoriously undesirable. Despite being certified fit in June 1972, he unjustifiably failed to resume his duties for months, leaving his position effectively vacant and impairing office operations. His prolonged, unexplained absence after recovery constituted incompetence and misconduct. Letter of Instruction No. 14-A expressly authorized department heads to summarily dismiss notoriously undesirable employees without filing formal charges. Furthermore, Gandionco’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Civil Service Commission, as permitted under Section 2 of P.D. No. 6 for cases of removal, precluded judicial interference. The dismissal was a valid executive act implementing the reorganization decrees.