G.R. No. L-46585 February 8, 1988
DR. ANGELA V. GINSON, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA AND MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MURCIA AND HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Angela V. Ginson was the Municipal Dentist of Murcia, Negros Occidental, having served continuously and efficiently since August 1, 1964. On February 16, 1968, forty-four days after assuming office, Municipal Mayor Baldomero de la Rama terminated her services effective immediately, citing “lack of funds” as the sole reason. Dr. Ginson immediately protested her dismissal, asserting her security of tenure under Civil Service Law, but the Mayor refused reinstatement and challenged her to file a case. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Ginson, ordering her reinstatement with back wages and attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court accepted the municipality’s claim of financial distress, specifically an alleged overdraft, as sufficient justification for the termination of Dr. Ginson’s services. This reversal prompted the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the respondent municipality’s claim of financial incapacity justified the dismissal of the petitioner, or if the termination was an invalid removal disguised as an abolition of position, violating her constitutional right to security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s decision with modifications. The Court held that the dismissal was illegal and not justified by a bona fide abolition of office. While the general rule is that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding, the Supreme Court found compelling exceptions as the appellate court’s conclusions contradicted the trial court’s findings and were unsupported by the evidence on record.
The legal logic centered on the principle that abolition of a position to circumvent security of tenure must be done in good faith. The Court scrutinized the municipality’s financial claims and found them inconsistent and indicative of bad faith. Evidence showed that at the time of dismissal, the municipality had funds to cover Dr. Ginson’s salary for months ahead. Furthermore, its annual budget for 1968-1969 more than doubled from the previous year, salary increases were approved for other employees, and new appointments were made contemporaneously with her termination. These actions negated any genuine claim of insolvency. The Court, citing Cruz vs. Primicias Jr., emphasized that a purported reorganization for economy is void if done in bad faith, such as when new positions are created while tenured employees are removed. Given the nearly twenty-year lapse since the dismissal, the Court ordered Dr. Ginson’s reinstatement (if still qualified and not otherwise employed) and awarded her back salaries equivalent to five years without qualification, plus attorney’s fees, holding the respondents jointly and solidarily liable.