Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 160367 : August 06, 2008] EVELYN S. CABUNGCAL, ELVIRA J. CANLAS, MARIANITA A. BULANAN, REMEDIOS S.B. DE JESUS AND NUNJLONJ. MABLNI V. SONLA R. LORENZO, IN HER CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SAN ISIDRO, NUEVA ECIJA, CECILLO DE GUZMAN, VICE-MAYOR, CESARJO LOPEZ, JR., EMILLO PACSON, BONIFACIO CASERES, JR., NAPOLEON OCAMPO, MARIO CRUZ, PRISCILA REYES, ROLANDO ESQUIVEL, CRISENCIANO CABLAO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ISIDRO, NUEVA ECIJA, AND EDUARDO N. JOSON IV, VICE- GOVERNOR, BELLA AURORA A. DULAY, BENJAMIN V MORALES, CHRISTOPHER L. VILLAREAL, JOSE T, DEL MUNDO, SOLITA C. SANTOS, RENATO C. TOMAS, JOSE BERNARDO V. YANGO, IRENEO S. DE LEON, NATHANIEL B. BOTE, RUDY J DE LEON, RODOLFO M. LOPEZ, MA. LOURDES C. LAHOM, JOSE FRANCIS STEVEN M. DIZON, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated  06 August 2008:

G.R. No. 160367 - EVELYNS. CABUNGCAL, ELVIRA J. CANLAS, MARIANITA A. BULANAN, REMEDIOS S.B. BE JESUS and NUNILON J. MABLNI v. SONLA R. LORENZO, in her capacity of Municipal Mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, CECILLO DE GUZMAN, Vice-Mayor, CESARJO LOPEZ, JR., EMILLO PACSON, BONIFACIO CASERES, JR., NAPOLEON OCAMPO, MARIO CRUZ, PRISCILA REYES, ROLANDO ESQUIVEL, CRISENCIANO CABLAO, in their capacity as Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and EDUARDO N. JOSON IV, Vice- Governor, BELLA AURORA A. DULAY, BENJAMIN V MORALES, CHRISTOPHER L. VILLAREAL, JOSE T, DEL MUNDO, SOLITA C. SANTOS, RENATO C. TOMAS, JOSE BERNARDO V. YANGO, IRENEO S. DE LEON, NATHANIEL B. BOTE, RUDY J DE LEON, RODOLFO M. LOPEZ, MA. LOURDES C. LAHOM, JOSE FRANCIS STEVEN M. DIZON, in their capacity as Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Nueva Ecija


Based on the allegations, issues and arguments adduced by die parties in their pleadings, the Court resolves to require the parties to FILE their respective supplemental memoranda within a non-extendible period of 15 days from notice hereof, stating in clear and concise statements their respective positions on the following questions:

Whether Sections 8^[1] and 9^[2] of Republic Act No. 6656,^[3] as implemented by Sections 18,^[4]  19^[5] and 20^[6] of the Rules on Government Reorganization, vest in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from personnel actions taken by respondents against petitioners as a result of reorganization;

1. If jurisdiction lies in the CSC

a.	whether the Court, in line with its ruling in Casimina v. Legaspi,[7]' must deny the petition for failure of petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies prior to its recourse to the Court of Appeals; or,
b.	whether the petition presents an issue of momentous importance that the Court, at this stage in the proceedings and despite petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies, should refer it to the CSC for resolution of the following questions of fact:
	a.1	Was the action in question taken by respondents against petitioners pursuant to the devolution of the Rural Health Unit of the Municipal Government of San Lsidro, Nueva Ecija, as provided under Section 17[8] of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code but implemented through the reorganization of the Municipal Government of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija under Section 76[9] of the Local Government Code?
		a. 1.1.	If the personnel action taken was devolution through reorganization, should the absorption of petitioners, as required under Section 17 of the Local Government Code, be automatic and mandatory?
		a. 1.2.	Is the absorption of petitioners administratively viable as contemplated under Section 17 of the Local Government Code.
	a.2.	If the personnel action taken was purely reorganization, was it characterized by any of the circumstances manifesting bad faith as enumerated under Section 2[10] of Republic Act No. 6656?
	"a.3.	Is there factual basis to the claim of respondents that they abolished some positions in the Rural Health Unit and downgraded others due to budgetary constraints, redundancy and distortion in salaries between employees of devolved agencies and other workers of the local government?

2. If jurisdiction lies in the CA, whether the Court may remand the case to it for reception of evidence on the foregoing questions of fact.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Section 8. An officer or employee who is still not satisfied with the decision of the appointing authority may further appeal within ten (10) days from receipt thereof to the Civil Service Commission which shall render a decision thereon within thirty (30) days and whose decision shall be final and executory.

^[2] Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation x x x.

^[3]An Act to protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization; Section 13 provides that the rights and benefits granted under the law shall retroact to June 30,1987.

^[4] Section 18. Appeal to the Appointing Authority. - Any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments made may file an appeal with the appointing authority within ten (10) days from the last day of posting of the appointments by the Personnel Officer. Any officer or employee whose services were terminated may also appeal to the appointing authority within ten (10) days from receipt of his notice of termination.

The appointing authority shall render a decision on the appeals within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof :

^[5] Section 19, Appeal to the Civil Service Commission. - (1) Any officer or employee who is still not satisfied with die decision of the appointing authority may further appeal within ten (10) days from receipt "(hereof to the Civil Service Commission x xx.

^[6] Section 20. Order of Reappointment. - All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of RA. No. 6656 and these Rules shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority rights and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation corresponding to the positions to which they should have been appointed based on the evaluation and assessment as provided for in these Rules.

^[7] G.R. No. 147530, June 29, 2005,462 SCRA 171.

^[8] Section 17. Basic Services and Facilities. - x x x 1) The devolution contemplated in this Code shall include the transfer to local government units of the records, equipment, and other assets and personnel of national agencies and offices corresponding to the devolved powers, functions, and responsibilities.

Personnel of said national agencies or offices shall be absorbed by the local government units to which they belong or in whose areas they are assigned to the extent that it is administratively viable as determined by the said oversight committee: Provided, That the rights accorded to such personnel pursuant to civil service law, rules and regulations shall not be impaired: Provided, further, That regional directors who are career executive service officers and other officers of similar rank in the said regional offices who cannot be absorbed fay the local government unit shall be retained by the national government, without any diminution of rank, salary or tenure. (Emphasis supplied)

^[9]Section 76, Organizational Structure and Staffing Pattern. - Every local government unit shall design and implement its own organizational structure and staffing pattern taking into consideration its service requirements and financial capability, subject to the minimum standards and guidelines presented, by the Civil Service Commission.

^[10] Section 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or some of the following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved parry: a. where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned; b) where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created; c) where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; d) where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the original offices; or e) where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof.