September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 152426 : September 28, 2010] NICASIO MALAYO RAMOS, MAYOR OF CAJIDIOCAN, ROMBLON V. EDGARDO VERCELES ; G.R. NO. 152796 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. EDGARDO :
[G.R. No. 152426 : September 28, 2010]
NICASIO MALAYO RAMOS, MAYOR OF CAJIDIOCAN, ROMBLON V. EDGARDO VERCELES ; G.R. NO. 152796 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. EDGARDO VERCELES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 28, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 152426 (Nicasio Malayo Ramos, Mayor of Cajidiocan, Romblon v. Edgardo Verceles); G.R. No. 152796 (Civil Service Commission v. Edgardo Verceles).
RESOLUTION
This is a case where one claims reinstatement to his former position based on his eligibility but which another refused to implement on the ground of abandonment.
The Facts and the Case
On December 1, 1991[1] respondent Edgardo Verceles (Verceles), a second grade civil service eligible, was appointed Municipal Secretary of Cajidiocan, Romblon. With the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991, however, his position was upgraded to Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan, which required first grade eligibility. At any rate, the Cajidiocan Municipality underwent partial reorganization that resulted in the upgrading of the salaries of its employees in March 1993. As a consequence, Verceles was extended a new appointment as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan.[2]
Still, afraid that the Municipality would use the reorganization to oust him as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, on April 2, 1993 Verceles applied for the position of Chief Legislative Staff Officer of his brother, a labor sectoral representative of the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, on April 29, 1993 Verceles applied with the Cajidiocan Municipality for a leave of absence with pay from May 10 to 26, 1993 and without pay from May 27 to August 17, 1993 to seek treatment of his heart condition and look for another job.[3] As it happened, the House of Representatives processed his application for a position on May 14 and 21, 1993 and approved it, retroactive to April 2, 1993, the date of his application.[4]
Meantime, on June 23, 1993 the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Romblon Field Office disapproved Verceles' earlier appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary on the ground that he did not have the correct eligibility for it. Although he had already been working with the House of Representatives when Verceles heard of this disapproval, he appealed from it to the CSC on June 15, 1994.[5]
On March 31, 1995 the CSC issued Resolution 952428,[6] reversing the CSC Field Office disapproval of Verceles' appointment. It reasoned that the municipal reorganization did not nullify Verceles' permanent appointment that took effect on December 1, 1991. All that he need for an upgraded position brought about by reorganization was a Notice of Upgrading.
When Cajidiocan Mayor Nicasio Ramos assumed his post in July 1995, however, he wrote the CSC for a clarification of its Resolution 952428 considering it could no longer be implemented because someone else was already holding the position of Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. Mayor Ramos pointed out that the CSC failed to consider the fact that the Municipality did not replace Verceles because he lacked eligibility but because he had abandoned that position when he accepted employment at the House of Representatives in April 1993. He also incurred absences of more than 30 days without official leave.[7]
On October 5, 1995, without resolving the issue of Verceles' abandonment of work, the CSC issued Resolution 956054,[8] maintaining its earlier resolution and enjoining the Municipality to implement the same.[9] Because the Mayor and his Vice-Mayor continued not to reinstate Verceles, the latter took recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) which then directed the officials mentioned to implement the CSC Resolutions.[10] In deference to the OMB, on October 20, 1997 the Municipality advised Verceles to report back to work. But when he did so on January 5, 1998,[11] the Assistant Municipal Treasurer refused to put him on the payroll on orders of the Mayor. Verceles found his way to the CSC anew to ask for assistance.[12] In response, on September 23, 1998 the CSC issued Resolution 982504,[13] ordering Verceles' reinstatement and the payment of his back salaries.[14]
On November 5, 1998 Mayor Ramos filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration[15] of the CSC Resolutions 952428, 956054, and 982504. He questioned Verceles' right to reinstatement-and backwages, pointing out that the Municipality never terminated him for lack of eligibility. In fact, even after the CSC field office disapproved Verceles' appointment on June 23, 1993, he still continued working for the Municipality until August 17, 1993, as evidenced by his approved leave application.
The Mayor insisted that the Municipality removed Verceles because he had since stopped reporting for work without official leave, abandoning it for his new job at the House of Representatives which, the Municipality later on learned, he had been occupying as early as April 6, 1993. The Municipality dropped Verceles from the rolls because of his long absence and acceptance of another post in the government. It would be unjust, said the Mayor, if the Municipality were to pay Verceles backwages after he had received compensation from Congress.
On January 25, 1999 the CSC issued Resolution 990257,[16] overturning its previous resolutions after realizing that the Municipality had actually refused reinstatement of Verceles on the grounds of long absence without leave and double compensation. Moreover, Verceles admitted working at the House of Representatives since April 1993. Verceles filed a motion for reconsideration but the CSC denied it in its Resolution 991516[17] dated July 9, 1999.
Verceles went up to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for certiorari.[18] On November 28, 2001 the CA rendered a decision,[19] setting aside the CSC resolutions. Mayor Ramos sought reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied the same.[20] Both Mayor Ramos and the CSC took recourse to this Court by separate petitions for review in G.R. 152426 and 152796.
Questions Presented
The case presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not Verceles' acceptance of a position at the House of Representatives constituted abandonment of his position as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Romblon;
2. In the affirmative, whether or not the CSC may still take cognizance of such fact to uphold Verceles' removal from his post; and
3. Whether or not Verceles was entitled to compensation for the services he rendered as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan for the month of January 1998.
The Court's Rulings
One. There is no question that Verceles applied for, was accepted, and worked as Chief Legislative Staff Officer at the House of Representatives. Both parties concede these facts. The question is: did this constitute abandonment of his municipal post?
There is abandonment of office when the holder voluntarily relinquishes it with the intention of ending his possession and control of the same. It is a choice deliberately and freely made. But the officer concerned must clearly manifest his intent to abandon.[21]
Here, that intent is clear. Verceles sought and found employment in Congress of his own accord as Chief Legislative Staff Officer.[22] And he received compensation for work there. [23] True, the CSC Field Office disapproved his new appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. But this disapproval came about only on June 23, 1993 and he found out about it only on July 12, 1993. Thus, whether he assumed his post in Congress on May 21, 1993 or, as CSC claimed, on April 6, 1993, the fact remained that as of the latter dates Verceles had no idea that the CSC Field Office had rejected his new appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. This shows that he had decided to take on new employment before seeking relief from the CSC field office ruling.
Moreover, his having been dropped from the rolls in late 1993 because of his prolonged unauthorized absences barred him from being reinstated. As the CSC correctly ruled, the dropping of respondent Verceles supervened to abrogate whatever right he had in relation to his former position. In a way, he concealed the fact of his new employment from the CSC. Had the CSC known that Verceles already got another employment and was dropped from the rolls, it would not have ordered his reinstatement with backwages.[24]
Two. The CA held that the Municipality's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of or an appeal from Resolutions 952428, 956054, and 982504 rendered these resolutions final and executory, barring the CSC from altering, amending, or revoking them.
The Court accepts as valid, however, the CSC's explanation that, although the decision it earlier issued in Verceles' favor had become final and executory, its execution was no longer possible. At the time his successor took over the subject position in 1993, it was legally vacant, given the CSC's finding that Verceles abandoned the same and had been dropped from the service. Consequently, with someone else legally in place, Verceles had no position to return to. The CSC merely carried out its duty to protect the integrity of the government service against stale claims to public office.[25]
Three. Not being entitled to the position he sought, Verceles cannot be paid wages out of the Municipal funds for the one month he worked.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions, SETS ASIDE the decision dated November 28, 2001 and resolution dated February 22, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 54950, and RULES that respondent Edgardo C. Verceles can neither be reinstated to his former position as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Cajidiocan, Romblon, nor paid backwages with respect to such position."
"G.R. No. 152426 (Nicasio Malayo Ramos, Mayor of Cajidiocan, Romblon v. Edgardo Verceles); G.R. No. 152796 (Civil Service Commission v. Edgardo Verceles).
RESOLUTION
This is a case where one claims reinstatement to his former position based on his eligibility but which another refused to implement on the ground of abandonment.
The Facts and the Case
On December 1, 1991[1] respondent Edgardo Verceles (Verceles), a second grade civil service eligible, was appointed Municipal Secretary of Cajidiocan, Romblon. With the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991, however, his position was upgraded to Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan, which required first grade eligibility. At any rate, the Cajidiocan Municipality underwent partial reorganization that resulted in the upgrading of the salaries of its employees in March 1993. As a consequence, Verceles was extended a new appointment as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan.[2]
Still, afraid that the Municipality would use the reorganization to oust him as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, on April 2, 1993 Verceles applied for the position of Chief Legislative Staff Officer of his brother, a labor sectoral representative of the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, on April 29, 1993 Verceles applied with the Cajidiocan Municipality for a leave of absence with pay from May 10 to 26, 1993 and without pay from May 27 to August 17, 1993 to seek treatment of his heart condition and look for another job.[3] As it happened, the House of Representatives processed his application for a position on May 14 and 21, 1993 and approved it, retroactive to April 2, 1993, the date of his application.[4]
Meantime, on June 23, 1993 the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Romblon Field Office disapproved Verceles' earlier appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary on the ground that he did not have the correct eligibility for it. Although he had already been working with the House of Representatives when Verceles heard of this disapproval, he appealed from it to the CSC on June 15, 1994.[5]
On March 31, 1995 the CSC issued Resolution 952428,[6] reversing the CSC Field Office disapproval of Verceles' appointment. It reasoned that the municipal reorganization did not nullify Verceles' permanent appointment that took effect on December 1, 1991. All that he need for an upgraded position brought about by reorganization was a Notice of Upgrading.
When Cajidiocan Mayor Nicasio Ramos assumed his post in July 1995, however, he wrote the CSC for a clarification of its Resolution 952428 considering it could no longer be implemented because someone else was already holding the position of Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. Mayor Ramos pointed out that the CSC failed to consider the fact that the Municipality did not replace Verceles because he lacked eligibility but because he had abandoned that position when he accepted employment at the House of Representatives in April 1993. He also incurred absences of more than 30 days without official leave.[7]
On October 5, 1995, without resolving the issue of Verceles' abandonment of work, the CSC issued Resolution 956054,[8] maintaining its earlier resolution and enjoining the Municipality to implement the same.[9] Because the Mayor and his Vice-Mayor continued not to reinstate Verceles, the latter took recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) which then directed the officials mentioned to implement the CSC Resolutions.[10] In deference to the OMB, on October 20, 1997 the Municipality advised Verceles to report back to work. But when he did so on January 5, 1998,[11] the Assistant Municipal Treasurer refused to put him on the payroll on orders of the Mayor. Verceles found his way to the CSC anew to ask for assistance.[12] In response, on September 23, 1998 the CSC issued Resolution 982504,[13] ordering Verceles' reinstatement and the payment of his back salaries.[14]
On November 5, 1998 Mayor Ramos filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration[15] of the CSC Resolutions 952428, 956054, and 982504. He questioned Verceles' right to reinstatement-and backwages, pointing out that the Municipality never terminated him for lack of eligibility. In fact, even after the CSC field office disapproved Verceles' appointment on June 23, 1993, he still continued working for the Municipality until August 17, 1993, as evidenced by his approved leave application.
The Mayor insisted that the Municipality removed Verceles because he had since stopped reporting for work without official leave, abandoning it for his new job at the House of Representatives which, the Municipality later on learned, he had been occupying as early as April 6, 1993. The Municipality dropped Verceles from the rolls because of his long absence and acceptance of another post in the government. It would be unjust, said the Mayor, if the Municipality were to pay Verceles backwages after he had received compensation from Congress.
On January 25, 1999 the CSC issued Resolution 990257,[16] overturning its previous resolutions after realizing that the Municipality had actually refused reinstatement of Verceles on the grounds of long absence without leave and double compensation. Moreover, Verceles admitted working at the House of Representatives since April 1993. Verceles filed a motion for reconsideration but the CSC denied it in its Resolution 991516[17] dated July 9, 1999.
Verceles went up to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for certiorari.[18] On November 28, 2001 the CA rendered a decision,[19] setting aside the CSC resolutions. Mayor Ramos sought reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied the same.[20] Both Mayor Ramos and the CSC took recourse to this Court by separate petitions for review in G.R. 152426 and 152796.
Questions Presented
The case presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not Verceles' acceptance of a position at the House of Representatives constituted abandonment of his position as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Romblon;
2. In the affirmative, whether or not the CSC may still take cognizance of such fact to uphold Verceles' removal from his post; and
3. Whether or not Verceles was entitled to compensation for the services he rendered as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan for the month of January 1998.
The Court's Rulings
One. There is no question that Verceles applied for, was accepted, and worked as Chief Legislative Staff Officer at the House of Representatives. Both parties concede these facts. The question is: did this constitute abandonment of his municipal post?
There is abandonment of office when the holder voluntarily relinquishes it with the intention of ending his possession and control of the same. It is a choice deliberately and freely made. But the officer concerned must clearly manifest his intent to abandon.[21]
Here, that intent is clear. Verceles sought and found employment in Congress of his own accord as Chief Legislative Staff Officer.[22] And he received compensation for work there. [23] True, the CSC Field Office disapproved his new appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. But this disapproval came about only on June 23, 1993 and he found out about it only on July 12, 1993. Thus, whether he assumed his post in Congress on May 21, 1993 or, as CSC claimed, on April 6, 1993, the fact remained that as of the latter dates Verceles had no idea that the CSC Field Office had rejected his new appointment as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary. This shows that he had decided to take on new employment before seeking relief from the CSC field office ruling.
Moreover, his having been dropped from the rolls in late 1993 because of his prolonged unauthorized absences barred him from being reinstated. As the CSC correctly ruled, the dropping of respondent Verceles supervened to abrogate whatever right he had in relation to his former position. In a way, he concealed the fact of his new employment from the CSC. Had the CSC known that Verceles already got another employment and was dropped from the rolls, it would not have ordered his reinstatement with backwages.[24]
Two. The CA held that the Municipality's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of or an appeal from Resolutions 952428, 956054, and 982504 rendered these resolutions final and executory, barring the CSC from altering, amending, or revoking them.
The Court accepts as valid, however, the CSC's explanation that, although the decision it earlier issued in Verceles' favor had become final and executory, its execution was no longer possible. At the time his successor took over the subject position in 1993, it was legally vacant, given the CSC's finding that Verceles abandoned the same and had been dropped from the service. Consequently, with someone else legally in place, Verceles had no position to return to. The CSC merely carried out its duty to protect the integrity of the government service against stale claims to public office.[25]
Three. Not being entitled to the position he sought, Verceles cannot be paid wages out of the Municipal funds for the one month he worked.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions, SETS ASIDE the decision dated November 28, 2001 and resolution dated February 22, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 54950, and RULES that respondent Edgardo C. Verceles can neither be reinstated to his former position as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Cajidiocan, Romblon, nor paid backwages with respect to such position."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (G.R. 152426), p. 8.
[2] Rollo (G.R. 152796), p. 525.
[3] Id. at 241, 444.
[4] Id. at 241-242, 456; rollo (G.R. 152426), p. 29.
[5] Id. at 240.
[6] Id. at 73-74.
[7] Id. at 243-244. See rollo (G.R. 152426), p. 9.
[8] Id. at 75-76.
[9] Id. at 75.
[10] Id. at 527.
[11] Id. at 447.
[12] Supra note 10.
[13] Id. at 79-81.
[14] Id. at 81.
[15] Id. at 82-93.
[16] Rollo (G.R. 152426), pp. 37-43.
[17] Id. at 44-46.
[18] Rollo (G.R. 152796), pp. 123-149, docketed as CA-G.R. SP 54950.
[19] Rollo (G.R. 152426), pp. 20-24. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez,
Jr., with Associate Justices Delilah Vidalion-Magtolis and Candido V. Rivera concurring.
[20] Id. at 25-27.
[21] Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres, Catanduanes v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 303, 316-317 (1998).
[22] Rollo (G.R. 152796), p. 72.
[23] Id. at 110-112.
[24] Id. at 529-532.
[25] Id. at 533-534
