Due process rights of civil servants - G.R. No. 167002

G.R. No. 167002

"x x x.

As earlier recited, the CA upheld the appointment of Garcia as Assistant City Assessor of the City of Manila over the claims of Tomada and Reyes to that position. In this petition, Reyes questioned such ruling but, interestingly, Tomada never filed her comment on his petition.

Hernando B. Garcia
acquired a legal right to
the subject position


At this juncture, the Court resolves the issue of whether or not the CA was correct in upholding the validity of the appointment of Garcia over the claims of Tomada and Reyes.
In this regard, the Court agrees with the CA that Tomada’s transfer from the Office of the City Treasurer to the Office of the City Assessor was violative of Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code. Said section prohibits “any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers, within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission.” In this regard, the CSC, through Office Memorandum (OM) No. 11, Series of 1998, issued the following guideline:

The transfer or detail of officers and employees in the civil service, including public school teachers pursuant to Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code for the period beginning January 11, 1998 (Sunday) to June 10, 1998 (Wednesday), or 120 days before election and 30 days after election, is hereby prohibited. The phrase transfer or detail shall be construed in general terms. Thus any movement of officer or employee in the civil service, including public school teachers, from one agency is prohibited and is considered an election offense. [Emphasis supplied]

Another reason why the CA granted Garcia’s petition was Tomada’s lack of standing to appeal the disapproval of her appointment to the CSC. It cited the case of Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission[16] where it was ruled that only the appointing officer may ask for reconsideration of actions taken by the CSC on appointments. Thus, the CA stated that CSC should have refrained from acting on Tomada’s request for reconsideration, the same not having been endorsed by Mayor Atienza, the incumbent mayor of Manila and the appointing authority at the time of the disapproval of her appointment.

Moreover, as Garcia qualified, assumed office and became at that moment a government employee or part of the civil service, he then began to enjoy the constitutional protection that “No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.”[17] He acquired a legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. Therefore, he could only be removed for cause, after notice and hearing, consistent with the requirements of due process.

Here, Garcia was not accorded due process. It was only by a letter to Garcia dated June 7, 2000[18] from the CSC-GSIS Field Office that the CSC officially communicated, through Manila City Personnel Officer Josefino Reoma, that his appointment as City Government Assistant Department Head III (Assistant City Assessor) was recalled and that Mayor Atienza was requested to implement CSC Resolution Nos. 992208 and 001214 approving the appointment of Tomada. He was never given an opportunity to be heard.

As Garcia’s appointment was valid, there was no vacancy and Reyes could not ask for reinstatement or even reappointment. A fortiori, he (or his heirs) could not demand backwages.
x x x."