08 Dario Vs Mison PDF

1/7/2016 G.R.No.
81954
TodayisThursday,January07,2016
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.81954August8,1989
CESARZ.DARIO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.SALVADORM.MISON,HON.VICENTEJAYMEandHON.CATALINOMACARAIG,JR.,intheir
respectivecapacitiesasCommissionerofCustoms,SecretaryofFinance,andExecutiveSecretary,
respondents.
VICENTEA.FERIAJR.,petitioner,
vs.
HON.SALVADORM.MISON,HON.VICENTEJAYME,andHON.CATALINOMACARAIG,JR.,intheir
respectivecapacitiesasCommissionerofCustoms,SecretaryofFinance,andExecutiveSecretary,
respondents.
ADOLFOCASARENO,PACIFICOLAGLEVA,JULIANC.ESPIRITU,DENNISA.AZARRAGA,RENATODE
JESUS,NICASIOC.GAMBOA,CORAZONRALLOSNIEVES,FELICITACIONR.GELUZ,LEODEGARIOH.
FLORESCA,SUBAERPACASUM,ZENAIDALANARIA,JOSEB.ORTIZ,GLICERIOR.DOLAR,CORNELIO
NAPA,PABLOB.SANTOS,FERMINRODRIGUEZ,DALISAYBAUTISTA,LEONARDOJOSE,ALBERTO
LONTOK,PORFIRIOTABINO,JOSEBARREDO,ROBERTOARNALDO,ESTERTAN,PEDROBAKAL,
ROSARIODAVID,RODOLFOAFUANG,LORENZOCATRE,LEONCIACATRE,ROBERTOABADA,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONERSALVADORM.MISON,COMMISSIONER,BUREAUOFCUSTOMS,respondent.
BENEDICTOL.AMASAandWILLIAMS.DIONISIO,petitioners,
vs.
PATRICIAA.STO.TOMAS,inhercapacityasChairmanoftheCivilServiceCommissionandSALVADOR
MISON,inhiscapacityasCommissioneroftheBureauofCustoms,respondents.
SALVADORM.MISON,inhiscapacityasCommissionerofCustoms,petitioner,
vs.
CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION,ABACA,SISINIOT.,ABAD,ROGELIOC.,ABADIANO,JOSEP.,ABCEDE,
NEMECIOC.,ABIOG,ELYF.,ABLAZA,AURORAM.,AGBAYANI,NELSONI.,AGRESANICETO,AGUILAR,
FLOR,AGUILUCHOMA.TERESAR.,AGUSTIN,BONIFACIOT.,ALANO,ALEXP.,ALBA,MAXIMOF.JR.,
ALBANO,ROBERTB.,ALCANTARA,JOSEG.,ALMARIO,RODOLFOF.,ALVEZ,ROMUALDOR.,AMISTAD
RUDYM.,AMOS,FRANCISF.,ANDRES,RODRIGOV.,ANGELES,RICARDOS.,ANOLIN,MILAGROSH.,
AQUINO,PASCASIOE.,ARABE,MELINDAM.,ARCANGEL,AGUSTINS.,JR.,ARPON,ULPLIANOU.,JR.,
ARREZA,ARTEMIOM.,JR.,ARROJO,ANTONIOP.,ARVISU,ALEXANDERS.,ASCAO,ANTONIOT.,
ASLAHON,JULAHONP.,ASUNCION,VICTORR.,ATANGAN,LORNAS.,ATIENZA,ALEXANDERR.,BACAL,
URSULINOC.,BAAGA,MARLOWE,Z.,BANTA,ALBERTOT.,BARREDO,JOSEB.,BARROS,VICTORC.,
BARTOLOME,FELIPEA.,BAYSAC,REYNALDOS.,BELENO,ANTONIOB.,BERNARDO,ROMEOD.,
BERNAS,MARCIANOS.,BOHOL,AUXILIADORG.,BRAVO,VICTORM.,BULEG,BALILISR.,CALNEA,
MERCEDESM.,CALVO,HONESTOG.,CAMACHO,CARLOSV.,CAMPOS,RODOLFOC.,CAPULONG,
RODRIGOG.,CARINGAL,GRACIAZ.,CARLOS,LORENZOB.,CARRANTO,FIDELU.,CARUNGCONG,
ALFREDOM.,CASTRO,PATRICIAJ.,CATELO,ROGELIOB.,CATURLA,MANUELB.,CENIZAL,JOSEFINA
F.,CINCO,LUISITO,CONDE0,JOSEC.,JR.,CORCUERA,FIDELS.,CORNETA,VICENTES.,CORONADO,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/gr_81954_1989.html 1/52
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
RICARDOS.,CRUZ,EDUARDOS.,CRUZ,EDILBERTOA.,CRUZ,EFIGENIAB.,CRUZADO,MARCIALC.,
CUSTODIO,RODOLFOM.,DABON,NORMAM.,DALINDIN,EDNAMAED.,DANDAL,EDENF.,DATUHARON,
SATAA.,DAZO,GODOFREDOL.,DECASTRO,LEOPAPA,DEGUZMAN,ANTONIOA.,DEGUZMAN,
RENATOE.,DELACRUZ,AMADOA.,JR.,DELACRUZ,FRANCISCOC.,DELAPEA,LEONARDO,DEL
CAMPO,ORLANDO,DELRIO,MAMERTOP.,JR.,DEMESA,WILHELMINAT.,DIMAKUTA,SALICL.,DIZON,
FELICITASA.,DOCTOR,HEIDYM.,DOLAR,GLICERIOR.,DOMINGO,NICANORJ.,DOMINGO,PERFECTO
V.,JR.,DUAY,JUANAG.,DYSANGCO,RENATOF.,EDILLOR,ALFREDOP.,ELEVAZO,LEONARDOA.,
ESCUYOS,MANUELM.,JR.,ESMERIA,ANTONIOE.,ESPALDON,MA.LOURDESH.,ESPINA,FRANCOA.,
ESTURCO,RODOLFOC.,EVANGELINO,FERMINI.,FELIX,ERNESTOG.,FERNANDEZ,ANDREWM.,
FERRAREN,ANTONIOC.,FERRERA,WENCESLAOA.,FRANCISCO,PELAGIOS.,JR.,FUENTES,RUDYL.,
GAGALANG,RENATOV.,GALANG,EDGARDOR.,GAMBOA,ANTONIOC.,GAN,ALBERTOR.,GARCIA,
GILBERTM.,GARCIA,EDNAV.,GARCIA,JUANL.,GAVIOLA,LILIANV.,GEMPARO,SEGUNDINAG.,
GOBENCIONG,FLORDELIZB.,GRATE,FREDERICKR.,GREGORIO,LAUROP.,GUARTICO,AMMONH.,
GUIANG,MYRNAN.,GUINTO,DELFINC.,HERNANDEZ,LUCASA.,HONRALES,LORETON.,HUERTO,
LEOPOLDOH.,HULAR,LANNYROSSE.,IBAEZ,ESTERC.,ILAGAN,HONORATOC.,INFANTE,
REYNALDOC.,ISAIS,RAYC.,ISMAEL,HADJIAKRAMB.,JANOLO,VIRGILIOM.,JAVIER,AMADORL.,
JAVIER,ROBERTOS.,JAVIER,WILLIAMR.,JOVEN,MEMIAA.,JULIAN,REYNALDOV.,JUMAMOY,
ABUNDIOA.,JUMAQUIAO,DOMINGOF.,KAINDOY,PASCUALB.,JR.,KOH,NANIEG.,LABILLES,
ERNESTOS.,LABRADOR,WILFREDOM.,LAGA,BIENVENIDOM.,LAGLEVA,PACIFICOZ.,LAGMAN,
EVANGELINEG.,LAMPONG,WILFREDOG.,LANDICHO,RESTITUTOA.,LAPITAN,CAMILOM.,LAURENTE,
REYNALDOA.,LICARTE,EVARISTOR.,LIPIO,VICTORO.,LITTAUA,FRANKLINZ.,LOPEZ,MELENCIOL.,
LUMBA,OLIVIA.,MACAISA,BENITOT.,MACAISA,ERLINDAC.,MAGAT,ELPIDIO,MAGLAYA,FERNANDO
P.,MALABANAN,ALFREDOC.,MALIBIRAN,ROSITAD.,MALIJAN,LAZAROV.,MALLI,JAVIERM.,
MANAHAN,RAMONS.,MANUEL,ELPIDIOR.,MARAVILLA,GILB.,MARCELO,GILC.,MARIAS,
RODOLFOV.,MAROKET,JESUSC.,MARTIN,NEMENCIOA.,MARTINEZ,ROMEOM.,MARTINEZ,
ROSELINAM.,MATIBAG,ANGELINAG.,MATUGAS,ERNESTOT.,MATUGAS,FRANCISCOT.,MAYUGA,
PORTIAE.,MEDINA,NESTORM.,MEDINA,ROLANDOS.,MENDAVIA,AVELINOI.,MENDOZA,
POTENCIANOG.,MIL,RAYM.,MIRAVALLES,ANASTACIAL.,MONFORTE,EUGENIO,JR.,G.,MONTANO,
ERNESTOF.,MONTERO,JUANM.III.,MORALDE,ESMERALDOB.,JR.,MORALES,CONCHITAD.L.,
MORALES,NESTORP.,MORALES,SHIRLEYS.,MUNAR,JUANITAL.,MUOZ,VICENTER.,MURILLO,
MANUELM.,NACION,PEDROR.,NAGAL,HENRYN.,NAPA,CORNELIOB.,NAVARRO,HENRYL.,NEJAL,
FREDRICKE.,NICOLAS,REYNALDOS.,NIEVES,RUFINOA.,OLAIVAR,SEBASTIANT.,OLEGARIO,LEOQ.,
ORTEGA,ARLENER.,ORTEGA,JESUSR.,OSORIO,ABNERS.,PAPIO,FLORENTINOT.II,PASCUA,
ARNULFOA.,PASTOR,ROSARIO,PELAYO,ROSARIOL.,PEA,AIDAC.,PEREZ,ESPERIDIONB.,PEREZ,
JESUSBAYANIM.,PRE,ISIDROA.,PRUDENCIADO,EULOGIAS.,PUNZALAN,LAMBERTON.,PURA,
ARNOLDT.,QUINONES,EDGARDOI.,QUINTOS,AMADEOC.,JR.,QUIRAY,NICOLASC.,RAMIREZ,
ROBERTOP.,RAADA,RODRIGOC.,RARAS,ANTONIOA.,RAVAL,VIOLETAV.,RAZAL,BETTYR.,
REGALA,PONCEF.,REYES,LIBERATOR.,REYES,MANUELE.,REYES,NORMAZ.,REYES,TELESFORO
F.,RIVERA,ROSITAL.,ROCES,ROBERTOV.,ROQUE,TERESITAS.,ROSANES,MARILOUM.,ROSETE,
ADANI.,RUANTO,REY,CRISTOC.,JR.,SABLADA,PASCASIOG.,SALAZAR,SILVERIAS.,SALAZAR,
VICTORIAA.,SALIMBACOD,PERLITAC.,SALMINGO,LOURDESM.,SANTIAGO,EMELITAB.,SATINA,
PORFIRIOC.,SEKITO,COSMEB.,JR.,SIMON,RAMONP.,SINGSON,MELECIOC.,SORIANO,ANGELOL.,
SORIANO,MAGDALENAR.,SUMULONG,ISIDROL.,JR.,SUNICO,ABELARDOT.,TABIJE,EMMAB.,TAN,
RUDY,GOROSPE,TAN,ESTERS.,TAN,JULITAS.,TECSON,BEATRIZB.,TOLENTINO,BENIGNOA.,
TURINGAN,ENRICOT.,JR.,UMPA,ALIA.,VALIC,LUCIOE.,VASQUEZ,NICANORB.,VELARDE,EDGARDO
C.,VERA,AVELINOA.,VERAME,OSCARE.,VIADO,LILIANT.,VIERNES,NAPOLEONK.,VILLALON,
DENNISA.,VILLAR,LUZL.,VILLALUZ,EMELITOV.,ZATA,ANGELA.,JR.,ACHARON,CRISTETO,ALBA,
RENATOB.,AMON,JULITAC.,AUSTRIA,ERNESTOC.,CALO,RAYMUNDOM.,CENTENO,BENJAMINR.,
DECASTRO,LEOPAPAC.,DONATO,ESTELITAP.,DONATO,FELIPES.,FLORES,PEDRITOS.,
GALAROSA,RENATO,MALAWI,MAUYAG,MONTENEGRO,FRANCISCOM.,OMEGA,PETRONILOT.,
SANTOS,GUILLERMOF.,TEMPLO,CELSO,VALDERAMA,JAIMEB.,andVALDEZ,NORAM.,respondents.
FRANKLINZ.LITTAUA,ADANI.ROSETE,FRANCISCOT.MATUGAS,MA.J.ANGELINAG.MATIBAG,
LEODEGARDIOH.FLORESCA,LEONARDOA.DELAPEA,ABELARDOT.SUNICO,MELENCIOL.LOPEZ,
NEMENCIOA.MARTIN,RUDYM.AMISTAD,ERNESTOT.MATUGAS,SILVERIAS.SALAZAR,LILLIANV.
GAVIOLA,MILAGROSANOLIN,JOSEB.ORTIZ,ARTEMIOARREZA,JR.,GILVERTOM.GARCIA,ANTONIO
A.RARAS,FLORDELINAB.GOBENCIONG,ANICETOAGRES,EDGARY.QUINONES,MANUELB.
CATURLA,ELYF.ABIOG,RODRIGOC.RANADA,LAUROGREGORIO,ALBERTOI.GAN,EDGARDO
GALANG,RAYC.ISAIS,NICANORB.VASQUEZ,MANUELESCUYOS,JR.,ANTONIOB.BELENO,ELPIOR.
MANUEL,AUXILIADORC.BOHOL,LEONARDOELEVAZO,VICENTES.CORNETA,petitioners,
vs.
COM.SALVADORM.MISON/BUREAUOFCUSTOMSandtheCIVILSERVICECOMMISSION,respondents.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
SALVADORM.MISON,inhiscapacityasCommissionerofCustoms,petitioner,
vs.
CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION,SENENS.DIMAGUILA,ROMEOP.ARABEBERNARDOS.QUINTONG,
GREGORIOP.REYES,andROMULOC.BADILLOrespondents
SARMIENTO,J.:
TheCourtwritesfinistothiscontreversythathasragedbitterlyfortheseveralmonths.Itdoessooutofligitimate
presentementofmoresuitsreachingitasaconsequenceofthegovernmentreorganizationandtheinstabilityit
has wrought on the performance and efficiency of the bureaucracy. The Court is apprehensive that unless the
final word is given and the ground rules are settled, the issue will fester, and likely foment on the constitutional
crisisforthenation,itselfbisetwithgraveandseriousproblems.
Thefactsarenotindispute.
On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, "DECLARING A NATIONAL
POLICYTOIMPLEMENTTHEREFORMSMANDATEDBYTHEPEOPLE,PROTECTINGTHEIRBASICRIGHTS,
ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A
GOVERNMENTUNDERANEWCONSTITUTION."Amongotherthings,ProclamationNo.3provided:
SECTION1....
ThePresidentshallgiveprioritytomeasurestoachievethemandateofthepeopleto:
(a) Completely reorganize the government, eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all
iniquitousvestigesofthepreviousregime1
...
Pursuantthereto,itwasalsoprovided:
SECTION 1. In the reorganization of the government, priority shall be given to measures to promote
economy,efficiency,andtheeradicationofgraftandcorruption.
SECTION2.Allelectiveandappointiveofficialsandemployeesunderthe1973Constitutionshallcontinue
in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the appointment and
qualificationoftheirsuccessors,ifsuchismadewithinaperiodofoneyearfromFebruary25,1986.
SECTION 3. Any public officer or employee separated from the service as a result of the organization
effected under this Proclamation shall, if entitled under the laws then in force, receive the retirement and
otherbenefitsaccruingthereunder.
SECTION 4. The records, equipment, buildings, facilities and other properties of all government offices
shall be carefully preserved. In case any office or body is abolished or reorganized pursuant to this
Proclamation, its FUNDS and properties shall be transferred to the office or body to which its powers,
functionsandresponsibilitiessubstantiallypertain.2
Actually,thereorganizationprocessstartedasearlyasFebruary25,1986,whenthePresident,inherfirstactin
office, called upon "all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy resignation(s) beginning with the
membersoftheSupremeCourt."3Lateron,sheabolishedtheBatasangPambansa4andthepositionsofPrime
MinisterandCabinet5underthe1973Constitution.
Since then, the President has issued a number of executive orders and directives reorganizing various other
governmentoffices,anumberofwhich,withrespecttoelectedlocalofficials,hasbeenchallengedinthisCourt,6
andtwoofwhich,withrespecttoappointedfunctionaries,havelikewisebeenquestionedherein.7
OnMay28,1986,thePresidentenactedExecutiveOrderNo.17,"PRESCRIBINGRULESANDREGULATIONS
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE FREEDOM CONSTITUTION." Executive
Order No. 17 recognized the "unnecessary anxiety and demoralization among the deserving officials and
employees" the ongoing government reorganization had generated, and prescribed as "grounds for the
separation/replacementofpersonnel,"thefollowing:
SECTION3.Thefollowingshallbethegroundsforseparationreplacementofpersonnel:
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
1)ExistenceofacaseforsummarydismissalpursuanttoSection40oftheCivilServiceLaw
2) Existence of a probable cause for violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act as
determinedbytheMnistryHeadconcerned
3)Grossincompetenceorinefficiencyinthedischargeoffunctions
4)Misuseofpublicofficeforpartisanpoliticalpurposes
5) Any other analogous ground showing that the incumbent is unfit to remain in the service or his
separation/replacementisintheinterestoftheservice.8
OnJanuary30,1987,thePresidentpromulgatedExecutiveOrderNo.127,"REORGANIZINGTHEMINISTRYOF
FINANCE." 9 Among other offices, Executive Order No. 127 provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs10andprescribedanewstaffingpatterntherefor.
Threedayslater,onFebruary2,1987,11theFilipinopeopleadoptedthenewConstitution.
OnJanuary6,1988,incumbentCommissionerofCustomsSalvadorMisonissuedaMemorandum,inthenature
of "Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization Executive Orders," 12 prescribing the procedure in
personnelplacement.Italsoprovided:
1. By February 28, 1988, the employees covered by Executive Order 127 and the grace period
extendedtotheBureauofCustomsbythePresidentofthePhilippinesonreorganizationshallbe:
a)informedoftheirreappointment,or
b)offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartmentoragencyor
c)informedoftheirtermination.13
On the same date, Commissioner Mison constituted a Reorganization Appeals Board charged with adjudicating
appealsfromremovalsundertheaboveMemorandum.14OnJanuary26,1988,CommissionerMisonaddressed
severalnoticestovariousCustomsofficials,inthetenorasfollows:
Sir:
Please be informed that the Bureau is now in the process of implementing the Reorganization Program
underExecutiveOrderNo.127.
Pursuant to Section 59 of the same Executive Order, all officers and employees of the Department of
Finance, or the Bureau of Customs in particular, shall continue to perform their respective duties and
responsibilities in a holdover capacity, and that those incumbents whose positions are not carried in the
newreorganizationpattern,orwhoarenotreappointed,shallbedeemedseparatedfromtheservice.
In this connection, we regret to inform you that your services are hereby terminated as of February 28,
1988. Subject to the normal clearances, you may receive the retirement benefits to which you may be
entitledunderexistinglaws,rulesandregulations.
In the meantime, your name will be included in the consolidated list compiled by the Civil Service
Commission so that you may be given priority for future employment with the Government as the need
arises.
Sincerelyyours,
(Sgd)SALVADORM.MISON
Commissioner15
Asfarastherecordswillyield,thefollowingwererecipientsofthesenotices:
1.CESARDARIO
2.VICENTEFERIA,JR.
3.ADOLFOCASARENO
4.PACIFICOLAGLEVA
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
5.JULIANC.ESPIRITU
6.DENNISA.AZARRAGA
7.RENATODEJESUS
8.NICASIOC.GAMBOA
9.CORAZONRALLOSNIEVES
10.FELICITACIONR.GELUZ
11.LEODEGARIOH.FLORESCA
12.SUBAERPACASUM
13.ZENAIDALANARIA
14.JOSEB.ORTIZ
15.GLICERIOR.DOLAR
16.CORNELIONAPA
17.PABLOB.SANTOS
18.FERMINRODRIGUEZ
19.DALISAYBAUTISTA
20.LEONARDOJOSE
21.ALBERTOLONTOK
22.PORFIRIOTABINO
23.JOSEBARREDO
24.ROBERTOARNALDO
25.ESTERTAN
26.PEDROBAKAL
27.ROSARIODAVID
28.RODOLFOAFUANG
29.LORENZOCATRE
30.LEONCIACATRE
31.ROBERTOABADA
32.ABACA,SISINIOT.
33.ABAD,ROGELIOC.
34.ABADIANO,JOSEP
35.ABCEDE,NEMECIOC.
36.ABIOG,ELYF.
37.ABLAZA,AURORAM.
38.AGBAYANI,NELSONI.
39.AGRES,ANICETO
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
40.AGUILAR,FLOR
41.AGUILUCHO,MA.TERESAR.
42.AGUSTIN,BONIFACIOT.
43.ALANO,ALEXP.
44.ALBA,MAXIMOF.JR.
45.ALBANO,ROBERTB.
46.ALCANTARA,JOSEG.
47.ALMARIO,RODOLFOF.
48.ALVEZ,ROMUALDOR.
49.AMISTAD,RUDYM.
50.AMOS,FRANCISF.
51.ANDRES,RODRIGOV.
52.ANGELES,RICARDOS.
53.ANOLIN,MILAGROSH.
54.AQUINO,PASCASIOE.L.
55.ARABE,MELINDAM.
56.ARCANGEL,AGUSTINS,JR.
57.ARPON,ULPIANOU.,JR.
58.ARREZA,ARTEMIOM,JR.
59.ARROJO,ANTONIOP.
60.ARVISU,ALEXANDERS.
61.ASCAO,ANTONIOT.
62.ASLAHON,JULAHONP.
63.ASUNCION,VICTORR.
64.ATANGAN,LORNAS.
65.ANTIENZA,ALEXANDERR.
66.BACALURSULINOC.
67.BAAGA,MARLOWEZ.
68.BANTA,ALBERTOT.
69.BARROS,VICTORC.
70.BARTOLOME,FELIPEA.
71.BAYSAC,REYNALDOS.
72.BELENO,ANTONIOB.
73.BERNARDO,ROMEOD.
74.BERNAS,MARCIANOS.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
75.BOHOL,AUXILIADORG.
76.BRAVO,VICTORM.
77.BULEG,BALILISR.
78.CALNEA,MERCEDESM.
79.CALVO,HONESTOG.
80.CAMACHO,CARLOSV.
81.CAMPOS,RODOLFOC.
82.CAPULONG,RODRIGOG.
83.CARINGAL,GRACIAZ.
84.CARLOS,LORENZOB.
85.CARRANTO,FIDELU.
86.CARUNGCONG,ALFREDOM.
87.CASTRO,PATRICIAJ.
88.CATELO,ROGELIOB.
89.CATURLA,MANUELB.
90.CENIZAL,JOSEFINAF.
91.CINCO,LUISITO
92.CONDE,JOSEC.,JR.
93.CORCUERA,FIDELS.
94.CORNETA,VICENTES.
95.CORONADO,RICARDOS.
96.CRUZ,EDUARDOS.
97.CRUZ,EDILBERTOA,
98.CRUZ,EFIGENIAB.
99.CRUZADO,NORMAM.
100.CUSTODIO,RODOLFOM.
101.DABON,NORMAM.
102.DALINDIN,EDNAMAED.
103.DANDAL,EDENF.
104.DATUHARON,SATAA.
105.DAZO,GODOFREDOL.
106.DECASTRO,LEOPAPA
107.DEGUZMAN,ANTONIOA.
108.DEGUZMAN,RENATOE.
109.DELACRUZ,AMADOA.,JR.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
110.DELACRUZ,FRANCISCOC.
111.DELAPEA,LEONARDO
112.DELCAMPO,ORLANDO
113.DELRIO,MAMERTOP.,JR.
114.DEMESA,WILHELMINAT.
115.DIMAKUTA,SALICL.
116.DIZON,FELICITASA.
117.DOCTOR,HEIDYM.
118.DOMINGO,NICANORJ.
119.DOMINGO,PERFECTOV.,JR.
120.DUAY,JUANAG.
121.DYSANGCO,RENATOF.
122.EDILLOR,ALFREDOP.
123.ELEVAZO,LEONARDOA
124.ESCUYOS,MANUELM.,JR.
125.ESMERIA,ANTONIOE.
126.ESPALDON,MA.LOURDESH.
127.ESPINA,FRANCOA.
128.ESTURCO,RODOLFOC.
129.EVANGELINO,FERMINI.
130.FELIX,ERNESTOG.
131.FERNANDEZ,ANDREWM.
132.FERRAREN,ANTONIOC.
133.FERRERA,WENCESLAOA.
134.FRANCISCO,PELAGIOS,JR.
135.FUENTES,RUDYL.
136.GAGALANG,RENATOV.
137.GALANG,EDGARDOR.
138.GAMBOA,ANTONIOC.
139.GAN,ALBERTOP
140.GARCIA,GILBERTM.
141.GARCIA,EDNAV.
142.GARCIA,JUANL.
143.GAVIOIA,LILIANV.
144.GEMPARO,SEGUNDINAG.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
145.GOBENCIONG,FLORDELIZB.
146.GRATE,FREDERICKR.
147.GREGORIO,LAUROP.
148.GUARTICO,AMMONH.
149.GUIANG,MYRNAN.
150.GUINTO,DELFINC.
151.HERNANDEZ,LUCASA.
152.HONRALES,LORETON.
153.HUERTO,LEOPOLDOH.
154.HULAR,LANNYROSSE.
155.IBAEZ,ESTERC.
156.ILAGAN,HONORATOC.
157.INFANTE,REYNALDOC.
158.ISAIS,RAYC.
159.ISMAEL,HADJIAKRAMB.
160.JANOLO,VIRGILIOM.
161.JAVIER,AMADORL.
162.JAVIER,ROBERTOS.
163.JAVIER,WILLIAMR.
164.JOVEN,MEMIAA.
165.JULIAN,REYNALDOV.
166.JUMAMOY,ABUNDIOA.
167.JUMAQUIAO,DOMINGOF.
168.KAINDOY,PASCUALB.,JR.
169.KOH,NANIEG.
170.LABILLES,ERNESTOS.
171.LABRADOR,WILFREDOM.
172.LAGA,BIENVENIDOM.
173.LAGMAN,EVANGELINEG.
174.LAMPONG,WILFREDOG.
175.LANDICHO,RESTITUTOA.
176.LAPITAN,CAMILOM.
177.LAURENTE,REYNALDOA.
178.LICARTE,EVARISTOR.
179.LIPIO,VICTORO.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
180.LITTAUA,FRANKLINZ.
181.LOPEZ,MELENCIOL.
182.LUMBA,OLIVIAR.
183.MACAISA,BENITOT.
184.MACAISA,ERLINDAC.
185.MAGAT,ELPIDIO
186.MAGLAYA,FERNANDOP.
187.MALABANAN,ALFREDOC.
188.MALIBIRAN,ROSITAD.
189.MALIJAN,LAZAROV.
190.MALLI,JAVIERM.
191.MANAHAN,RAMONS.
192.MANUEL,ELPIDIOR.
193.MARAVILLA,GILB.
194.MARCELO,GILC.
195.MARIAS,RODOLFOV.
196.MAROKET,JESUSC.
197.MARTIN,NEMENCIOA.
198.MARTINEZ,ROMEOM.
199.MARTINEZ,ROSELINAM.
200.MATIBAG,ANGELINAG.
201.MATUGAS,ERNESTOT.
202.MATUGAS,FRANCISCOT.
203.MAYUGA,PORTIAE.
204.MEDINA,NESTORM.
205.MEDINA,ROLANDOS.
206.MENDAVIA,AVELINO
207.MENDOZA,POTENCIANOG.
208.MIL,RAYM.
209.MIRAVALLES,ANASTACIAL.
210.MONFORTE,EUGENIO,JR.G.
211.MONTANO,ERNESTOF.
212.MONTERO,JUANM.III
213.MORALDE,ESMERALDOB.,JR.
214.MORALES,CONCHITAD.L
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
215.MORALES,NESTORP.
216.MORALES,SHIRLEYS.
217.MUNAR,JUANITAL.
218.MUOZ,VICENTER.
219.MURILLO,MANUELM.
220.NACION,PEDROR.
221.NAGAL,HENRYN.
222.NAVARRO,HENRYL.
223.NEJALFREDRICKE.
224.NICOLAS,REYNALDOS.
225.NIEVES,RUFINOA.
226.OLAIVAR,SEBASTIANT.
227.OLEGARIO,LEOQ.
228.ORTEGA,ARLENER.
229.ORTEGA,JESUSR.
230.OSORIO,ABNERS.
231.PAPIOFLORENTINOT.II
232.PASCUA,ARNULFOA.
233.PASTOR,ROSARIO
234.PELAYO,ROSARIOL.
235.PEA,AIDAC.
236.PEREZ,ESPERIDIONB.
237.PEREZ,JESUSBAYANIM.
238.PRE,ISIDROA.
239.PRUDENCIADO,EULOGIAS.
240.PUNZALAN,LAMBERTON.
241.PURA,ARNOLDT.
242.QUINONES,EDGARDOI.
243.QUINTOS,AMADEOC.,JR.
244.QUIRAY,NICOLASC.
245.RAMIREZ,ROBERTOP.
246.RANADA,RODRIGOC.
247.RARAS,ANTONIOA.
248.RAVAL,VIOLETAV.
249.RAZAL,BETTYR.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
250.REGALA,PONCEF.
251.REYES,LIBERATOR.
252.REYES,MANUELE.
253.REYES,NORMAZ.
254.REYES,TELESPOROF.
255.RIVERA,ROSITAL.
256.ROCES,ROBERTOV.
257.ROQUE,TERESITAS.
258.ROSANES,MARILOUM.
259.ROSETE,ADANI.
260.RUANTO,REYCRISTOC.,JR.
261.SABLADA,PASCASIOG.
262.SALAZAR,SILVERIAS.
263.SALAZAR,VICTORIAA.
264.SALIMBACOD,PERLITAC.
265.SALMINGO,LOURDESM.
266.SANTIAGO,EMELITAB.
267.SATINA,PORFIRIOC.
268.SEKITO,COSMEBJR.
269.SIMON,RAMONP.
270.SINGSON,MELENCIOC.
271.SORIANO,ANGELOL.
272.SORIANO,MAGDALENAR.
273.SUNICO,ABELARDOT.
274.TABIJE,EMMAB.
275.TAN,RUDYGOROSPE
276.TAN,ESTERS.
277.TAN,JULITAS.
278.TECSON,BEATRIZB.
279.TOLENTINO,BENIGNOA.
280.TURINGAN,ENRICOTJR.
281.UMPA,ALIA.
282.VALIC,LUCIOE.
283.VASQUEZ,NICANORB.
284.VELARDE,EDGARDOC.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
285.VERA,AVELINOA.
286.VERAME,OSCARE.
287.VIADO,LILIANT.
288.VIERNES,NAPOLEONK
289.VILLALON,DENNISA.
290.VILLAR,LUZL.
291.VILLALUZ,EMELITOV.
292.VILLAR,LUZL.
293.ZATA,ANGELAJR.
294.ACHARON,CRISTETO
295.ALBA,RENATOB.
296.AMON,JULITAC.
297.AUSTRIA,ERNESTOC.
298.CALO,RAYMUNDOM.
299.CENTENO,BENJAMINR.
300.DONATO,ESTELITAP.
301.DONATO,FELIPES
302.FLORES,PEDRITOS.
303.GALAROSA,RENATO
304.MALAWI,MAUYAG
305.MONTENEGRO,FRANSISCOM.
306.OMEGA,PETRONILOT.
307.SANTOS,GUILLERMOP.
308.TEMPLO,CELSO
309.VALDERAMA,JAIMEB.
310.VALDEZ,NORAM.
Cesar Dario is the petitioner in G.R. No. 81954 Vicente Feria, Jr., is the petitioner in G.R. No. 81967 Messrs.
Adolfo Caserano Pacifico Lagleva Julian C. Espiritu, Dennis A. Azarraga Renato de Jesus, Nicasio C. Gamboa,
MesdamesCorazonRallosNievesandFelicitacionR.GeluzMessrs.LeodegarioH.Floresca,SubaerPacasum
Ms. Zenaida Lanaria Mr. Jose B. Ortiz, Ms. Gliceria R. Dolar, Ms. Cornelia Napa, Pablo B. Santos, Fermin
Rodriguez,Ms.DaligayBautista,Messrs.LeonardoJose,AlbertoLontok,PorfirioTabinoJoseBarredo,Roberto
Arnaldo,Ms.EsterTan,Messrs.PedroBakal,RosarioDavid,RodolfoAfuang,LorenzoCatre,,Ms.LeonciaCatre,
andRobertoAbaca,arethepetitionersinG.R.No.82023thelast279 16individualsmentionedaretheprivate
respondentsinG.R.No.85310.
Asfarastherecordswilllikewisereveal,17atotalof394officialsandemployeesoftheBureauofCustomswere
given individual notices of separation. A number supposedly sought reinstatement with the Reorganization
Appeals Board while others went to the Civil Service Commission. The first thirtyone mentioned above came
directlytothisCourt.
On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement of the 279
employees,the279privaterespondentsinG.R.No.85310,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
WHEREFORE,itisherebyorderedthat:
1.AppellantsbeimmediatelyreappointedtopositionsofcomparableorequivalentrankintheBureau
ofCustomswithoutlossofseniorityrights
2.Appellantsbepaidtheirbacksalariesreckonedfromthedatesoftheirillegalterminationbasedon
theratesundertheapprovednewstaffingpatternbutnotlowerthantheirformersalaries.
ThisactionoftheCommissionshouldnot,however,beinterpretedasanexonerationoftheappellantsfrom
anyaccusationofwrongdoingand,therefore,theirreappointmentsarewithoutprejudiceto:
1. Proceeding with investigation of appellants with pending administrative cases, and where
investigationshavebeenfinished,topromptly,rendertheappropriatedecisions
2. The filing of appropriate administrative complaints against appellants with derogatory reports or
informationifevidencesowarrants.
SOORDERED.18
OnJuly15,1988,CommissionerMison,representedbytheSolicitorGeneral,filedamotionforreconsideration
Actingonthemotion,theCivilServiceCommission,onSeptember20,1988,deniedreconsideration.19
OnOctober20,1988,CommissionerMisoninstitutedcertiorariproceedingswiththisCourt,docketed,asabove
stated,asG.R.No.85310ofthisCourt.
On November 16,1988, the Civil Service Commission further disposed the appeal (from the resolution of the
ReorganizationAppealsBoard)offivemoreemployees,holdingasfollows:
WHEREFORE,itisherebyorderedthat:
1.AppellantsbeimmediatelyreappointedtopositionsofcomparableorequivalentrankintheBureau
ofCustomswithoutlossofseniorityrightsand
2. Appellants be paid their back salaries to be reckoned from the date of their illegal termination
basedontheratesundertheapprovednewstaffingpatternbutnotlowerthantheirformersalaries.
This action of the Commission should not, however, be interpreted as an exoneration of the herein
appellants from any accusation of any wrongdoing and therefore, their reappointments are without
prejudiceto:
1. Proceeding with investigation of appellants with pending administrative cases, if any, and where
investigationshavebeenfinished,topromptly,rendertheappropriatedecisionsand
2. The filing of appropriate administrative complaints against appellant with derogatory reports or
information,ifany,andifevidencesowarrants.
SOORDERED.20
OnJanuary6,1989,CommissionerMisonchallengedtheCivilServiceCommission'sResolutioninthisCourthis
petitioner has been docketed herein as G.R. No. 86241. The employees ordered to be reinstated are Senen
Dimaguila,RomeoArabe,BemardoQuintong,GregorioReyes,andRomuloBadillo.21
On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6656, "AN ACT TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL
SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION,"
22wassignedintolaw.UnderSection7,thereof:
Sec.9.AllofficersandemployeeswhoarefoundbytheCivilServiceCommissiontohavebeenseparated
in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be
withoutlossofseniorityandshallbeentitledtofullpayfortheperiodofseparation.Unlessalsoseparated
for cause, all officers and employees, including casuals and temporary employees, who have been
separatedpursuanttoreorganizationshall,ifentitledthereto,bepaidtheappropriateseparationpayand
retirementandotherbenefitsunderexistinglawswithinninety(90)daysfromthedateoftheeffectivityof
their separation or from the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be:
Provided, That application for clearance has been filed and no action thereon has been made by the
correspondingdepartmentoragency.Thosewhoarenotentitledtosaidbenefitsshallbepaidaseparation
gratuity in the amount equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. Such separation pay
and retirement benefits shall have priority of payment out of the savings of the department or agency
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
concerned.23
OnJune23,1988,BenedictoAmasaandWilliamDionisio,customsexaminersappointedbyCommissionerMison
pursuanttotheostensiblereorganizationsubjectofthiscontroversy,petitionedtheCourttocontestthevalidityof
thestatute.ThepetitionisdocketedasG.R.No.83737.
On October 21, 1988, thirtyfive more Customs officials whom the Civil Service Commission had ordered
reinstated by its June 30,1988 Resolution filed their own petition to compel the Commissioner of Customs to
complywiththesaidResolution.ThepetitionisdocketedasG.R.No.85335.
OnNovember29,1988,weresolvedtoconsolidateallsevenpetitions.
Onthesamedate,weresolvedtosetthematterforhearingonJanuary12,1989.Atthesaidhearing,theparties,
representedbytheircounsels(a)retiredJusticeRupertoMartin(b)retiredJusticeLinoPatajo.(c)formerDean
Froilan Bacungan (d) Atty. Lester Escobar (e) Atty. Faustino Tugade and (f) Atty. Alexander Padilla, presented
theirarguments.SolicitorGeneralFranciscoChavezarguedonbehalfoftheCommissionerofCustoms(exceptin
G.R.85335,inwhichherepresentedtheBureauofCustomsandtheCivilServiceCommission). F ormerSenator l w p h 1 . t
Ambrosio Padilla also appeared and argued as amicuscuriae Thereafter, we resolved to require the parties to
submittheirrespectivememorandawhichtheydidinduetime.
Thereisnoquestionthattheadministrationmayvalidlycarryoutagovernmentreorganizationinsofarasthese
cases are concerned, the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs by mandate not only of the Provisional
Constitution,supra, but also of the various Executive Orders decreed by the Chief Executive in her capacity as
solelawmakingauthorityunderthe19861987revolutionarygovernment.Itshouldalsobenotedthatunderthe
presentConstitution,thereisarecognition,albeitimplied,thatagovernmentreorganizationmaybelegitimately
undertaken,subjecttocertainconditions.24
The Court understands that the parties are agreed on the validity of a reorganization per se the only question
being,asshallbelaterseen:Whatisthenatureandextentofthisgovernmentreorganization?
The Court disregards the questions raised as to procedure, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the
standingofcertainpartiestosue, 25andothertechnicalobjections,fortworeasons,"[b]ecauseofthedemands
ofpublicinterest,includingtheneedforstabilityinthepublicservice,"26andbecauseoftheseriousimplications
ofthesecasesontheadministrationofthePhilippinecivilserviceandtherightsofpublicservants.
TheurgingsinG.R.Nos.85335and85310,thattheCivilServiceCommission'sResolutiondatedJune30,1988
had attained a character of finality for failure of Commissioner Mison to apply for judicial review or ask for
reconsiderationseasonalblyunderPresidentialDecreeNo.807, 27orunderRepublicActNo.6656, 28orunder
theConstitution,29arelikewiserejected.TherecordsshowthattheBureauofCustomshaduntilJuly15,1988to
askforreconsiderationorcometothisCourtpursuanttoSection39ofPresidentialDecreeNo.807.Therecords
likewise show that the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration on July 15, 1988.30 The Civil Service
CommissionissueditsResolutiondenyingreconsiderationonSeptember20,1988acopyofthisResolutionwas
receivedbytheBureauonSeptember23,1988.31HencetheBureauhaduntilOctober23,1988toelevatethe
matteroncertioraritothisCourt.32SincetheBureau'spetitionwasfiledonOctober20,1988,itwasfiledontime.
Wereject,finally,contentionsthattheBureau'spetition(inG.R.85310)raisesnojurisdictionalquestions,andis
thereforebereftofanybasisasapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt. 33Wefindthatthe
questions raised in Commissioner Mison's petition (in G.R. 85310) are, indeed, proper for certiorari, if by
"jurisdictional questions" we mean questions having to do with "an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness
andcaprice,oromissiontoweighpertinentconsiderations,adecisionarrivedatwithoutrationaldeliberation, 34
asdistinguishedfromquestionsthatrequire"diggingintothemeritsandunearthingerrorsofjudgment35whichis
theoffice,ontheotherhand,ofreviewunderRule45ofthesaidRules.Whatcannotbedeniedisthefactthatthe
act of the Civil Service Commission of reinstating hundreds of Customs employees Commissioner Mison had
separated,hasimplicationsnotonlyontheentirereorganizationprocessdecreednolessthanbytheProvisional
Constitution, but on the Philippine bureaucracy in general these implications are of such a magnitude that it
cannot be said that assuming that the Civil Service Commission erred the Commission committed a plain
"errorofjudgment"thatAratucsayscannotbecorrectedbytheextraordinaryremedyofcertiorarioranyspecial
civilaction.WereaffirmtheteachingofAratucasregardsrecoursetothisCourtwithrespecttorulingsofthe
Civil Service Commission which is that judgments of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
throughcertiorarialone,underRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
InAratucwedeclared:
It is once evident from these constitutional and statutory modifications that there is a definite tendency to
enhance and invigorate the role of the Commission on Elections as the independent constitutional body
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
chargedwiththesafeguardingoffree,peacefulandhonestelections.TheframersofthenewConstitution
mustbepresumedtohavedefiniteknowledgeofwhatitmeanstomakethedecisions,ordersandrulings
of the Commission "subject to review by the Supreme Court'. And since instead of maintaining that
provisionintact,itordainedthattheCommission'sactuationsbeinstead'broughttotheSupremeCourton
certiorari",Wecannotinsistthattherewasnointenttochangethenatureoftheremedy,consideringthat
thelimitedscopeofcertiorari,comparedtoareview,iswellknowninremediallaw.36
WeobservenofundamentaldifferencebetweentheCommissiononElectionsandtheCivilServiceCommission
(ortheCommissiononAuditforthatmatter)intermsoftheconstitutionalintenttoleavetheconstitutionalbodies
aloneintheenforcementoflawsrelativetoelections,withrespecttotheformer,andthecivilservice,withrespect
tothelatter(ortheauditofgovernmentaccounts,withrespecttotheCommissiononAudit).Asthepollbodyis
the"solejudge" 37ofallelectioncases,soistheCivilServiceCommissionthesinglearbiterofallcontroversies
pertainingtothecivilservice.
ItshouldalsobenotedthatunderthenewConstitution,asunderthe1973Charter,"anydecision,order,orruling
ofeachCommissionmaybebroughttotheSupremeCourtoncertiorari,"38which,asAratuctellsus,"technically
connotessomethinglessthansayingthatthesame'shallbesubjecttoreviewbytheSupremeCourt,'" 39which
inturnsuggestsanappealbypetitionforreviewunderRule45.Therefore,ourjurisdictionovercasesemanating
from the Civil Service Commission is limited to complaints of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretiontantamounttolackorexcessofjurisdiction,complaintsthatjustifycertiorariunderRule65.
While Republic Act No. 6656 states that judgments of the Commission are "final and executory"40 and hence,
unappealable,underRule65,certioraripreciselyliesintheabsenceofanappeal.41
Accordingly, we accept Commissioner Mison petition (G.R. No. 85310) which clearly charges the Civil Service
Commissionwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,apropersubjectofcertiorari,althoughitmaynothavesostatedin
explicitterms.
Astochargesthatthesaidpetitionhasbeenfiledoutoftime,wereiteratethatithasbeenfiledseasonably.Itisto
bestressedthattheSolicitorGeneralhadthirtydaysfromSeptember23,1988(thedatetheResolution,dated
September 20,1988, of the Civil Service Commission, denying reconsideration, was received) to commence the
instant certiorari proceedings. As we stated, under the Constitution, an aggrieved party has thirty days within
whichtochallenge"anydecision,order,orruling"42oftheCommission.Tosaythattheperiodshouldbecounted
fromtheSolicitor'sreceiptofthemainResolution,datedJune30,1988,istosaythatheshouldnothaveasked
forreconsiderationButtosaythatistodenyhimtherighttocontest(byamotionforreconsideration)anyruling,
otherthanthemaindecision,when,precisely,theConstitutiongiveshimsucharight.Thatisalsotoplacehimat
a"nowin"situationbecauseifhedidnotmoveforareconsideration,hewouldhavebeenfaultedfordemanding
certioraritooearly,underthegeneralrulethatamotionforreconsiderationshouldprefacearesorttoaspecial
civilaction.43Hence,wemustreckonthethirtydayperiodfromreceiptoftheorderofdenial.
Wecometothemeritsofthesecases.
G.R.Nos.81954,81967,82023,and85335:
TheCasefortheEmployees
ThepetitionerinG.R.No.81954,CesarDariowasoneoftheDeputyCommissionersoftheBureauofCustoms
untilhisreliefonordersofCommissionerMisononJanuary26,1988.Inessence,hequestionsthelegalityofhis
dismiss,whichheallegeswasupontheauthorityofSection59ofExecutiveOrderNo.127,supra, hereinbelow
reproducedasfollows:
SEC.59.NewStructureandPattern.UponapprovalofthisExecutiveOrder,theofficersandemployeesof
theMinistryshall,inaholdovercapacity,continuetoperformtheirrespectivedutiesandresponsibilitiesand
receive the corresponding salaries and benefits unless in the meantime they are separated from
governmentservicepursuanttoExecutiveOrderNo.17(1986)orArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution.
The new position structure and staffing pattern of the Ministry shall be approved and prescribed by the
Ministerwithinonehundredtwenty(120)daysfromtheapprovalofthisExecutiveOrderandtheauthorized
positions created hereunder shall be filled with regular appointments by him or by the President, as the
casemaybe.Thoseincumbentswhosepositionsarenotincludedthereinorwhoarenotreappointedshall
be deemed separated from the service. Those separated from the service shall receive the retirement
benefitstowhichtheymaybeentitledunderexistinglaws,rulesandregulations.Otherwise,theyshallbe
paidtheequivalentofonemonthbasicsalaryforeveryyearofservice,ortheequivalentnearestfraction
thereoffavorabletothemonthebasisofhighestsalaryreceivedbutinnocaseshallsuchpaymentexceed
theequivalentof12monthssalary.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
No court or administrative body shall issue any writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order to enjoin
theseparation/replacementofanyofficeroremployeeeffectedunderthisExecutiveOrder.44
a provision he claims the Commissioner could not have legally invoked. He avers that he could not have been
legallydeemedtobean"[incumbent]whose[position][is]notincludedthereinorwho[is]notreappointed"45 to
justifyhisseparationfromtheservice.HecontendsthatneithertheExecutiveOrder(underthesecondparagraph
of the section) nor the staffing pattern proposed by the Secretary of Finance 46 abolished the office of Deputy
CommissionerofCustoms,but,rather,increasedittothree.47Norcanitbesaid,sohefurthermaintains,thathe
had not been "reappointed" 48 (under the second paragraph of the section) because "[[r]eappointment therein
presupposesthatthepositiontowhichitrefersisanewoneinlieuofthatwhichhasbeenabolishedoralthough
an existing one, has absorbed that which has been abolished." 49 He claims, finally, that under the Provisional
Constitution, the power to dismiss public officials without cause ended on February 25, 1987,50 and that
thereafter,publicofficialsenjoyedsecurityoftenureundertheprovisionsofthe1987Constitution.51
Like Dario Vicente Feria, the petitioner in G.R. No. 81967, was a Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau until his
separation directed by Commissioner Mison. And like Dario he claims that under the 1987 Constitution, he has
acquiredsecurityoftenureandthathecannotbesaidtobecoveredbySection59ofExecutiveOrderNo.127,
having been appointed on April 22, 1986 during the effectivity of the Provisional Constitution. He adds that
under Executive Order No. 39, "ENLARGING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,"52 the Commissioner of Customs has the power "[t]o appoint all Bureau personnel, except those
appointed by the President," 53 and that his position, which is that of a Presidential appointee, is beyond the
controlofCommissionerMisonforpurposesofreorganization.
ThepetitionersinG.R.No.82023,collectorsandexaminersinvenousportsofthePhilippines,say,ontheother
hand,thatthepurposeofreorganizationistoendcorruptionattheBureauofCustomsandthatsincethereisno
findingthattheyareguiltyofcorruption,theycannotbevalidlydismissedfromtheservice.
TheCaseforCommissionerMison
In his comments, the Commissioner relies on this Court's resolution in Jose v. Arroyo54 in which the following
statementappearsinthelastparagraphthereof:
The contention of petitioner that Executive Order No. 127 is violative of the provision of the 1987
Constitution guaranteeing career civil service employees security of tenure overlooks the provisions of
Section16,ArticleXVIII(TransitoryProvisions)whichexplicitlyauthorizetheremovalofcareercivilservice
employees"notforcausebutasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch
25,1986andthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationofthisConstitution."Byvirtueofsaidprovision,the
reorganization of the Bureau of Customs under Executive Order No. 127 may continue even after the
ratification of the Constitution, and career civil service employees may be separated from the service
withoutcauseasaresultofsuchreorganization.55
Forthisreason,Misonposits,claimsofviolationofsecurityoftenureareallegedlynodefense.Hefurtherstates
that the deadline prescribed by the Provisional Constitution (February 25, 1987) has been superseded by the
1987Constitution,specifically,thetransitoryprovisionsthereof, 56whichallowsareorganizationthereafter(after
February 25, 1987) as this very Court has so declared in Jose v. Arroyo. Mison submits that contrary to the
employees'argument,Section59ofExecutiveOrderNo.127isapplicable(inparticular,toDarioandFeriainthe
sensethatretentionintheBureau,undertheExecutiveOrder,dependsoneitherretentionofthepositioninthe
new staffing pattern or reappointment of the incumbent, and since the dismissed employees had not been
reappointed, they had been considered legally separated. Moreover, Mison proffers that under Section 59
incumbentsareconsideredonholdoverstatus,"whichmeansthatallthosepositionswereconsideredvacant."57
TheSolicitorGeneraldeniestheapplicabilityofPalmaFernandezv.DelaPaz 58becausethatcasesupposedly
involvedameretransferandnotaseparation.Herejects,finally,theforceandeffectofExecutiveOrderNos.17
and39forthereasonthatExecutiveOrderNo.17,whichwasmeanttoimplementtheProvisionalConstitution,59
had ceased to have force and effect upon the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and that, under Executive
OrderNo.39,thedismissalscontemplatedwere"forcause"whiletheseparationsnowunderquestionwere"not
forcause"andwerearesultofgovernmentreorganizeorganizationdecreedbyExecutiveOrderNo.127.Anent
Republic Act No. 6656, he expresses doubts on the constitutionality of the grant of retroactivity therein (as
regardsthereinforcementofsecurityoftenure)sincethenewConstitutionclearlyallowsreorganizationafterits
effectivity.
G.R.Nos.85310and86241
ThePositionofCommissionerMison
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Commissioner's twin petitions are direct challenges to three rulings of the Civil Service Commission: (1) the
Resolution,datedJune30,1988,reinstatingthe265customsemployeesabovestated(2)theResolution,dated
September20,1988,denyingreconsiderationand(3)theResolution,datedNovember16,1988,reinstatingfive
employees.TheCommissioner'sargumentsareasfollows:
1.Theongoinggovernmentreorganizationisinthenatureofa"progressive" 60reorganization"impelledbythe
needtooverhaultheentiregovernmentbureaucracy"61followingthepeoplepowerrevolutionof1986
2.TherewasfaithfulcompliancebytheBureauofthevariousguidelinesissuedbythePresident,inparticular,as
todeliberation,andselectionofpersonnelforappointmentunderthenewstaffingpattern
3. The separated employees have been, under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127, on mere holdover
standing,"whichmeansthatallpositionsaredeclaredvacant"62
4.Josev.ArroyohasdeclaredthevalidityofExecutiveOrderNo.127underthetransitoryprovisionsofthe1987
Constitution
5.RepublicActNo.6656isofdoubtfulconstitutionality.
TheRulingoftheCivilServiceCommission
ThepositionoftheCivilServiceCommissionisasfollows:
1.Reorganizationsoccurwheretherehasbeenareductioninpersonnelorredundancyoffunctionsthereisno
showing that the reorganization in question has been carried out for either purpose on the contrary, the
dismissalsnowdisputedwerecarriedoutbymereserviceofnotices
2.ThecurrentCustomsreorganizationhasnotbeenmadeaccordingtoMalacaangguidelinesinformationon
filewiththeCommissionshowsthatCommissionerMisonhasbeenappointingunqualifiedpersonnel
3.Josev.Arroyo,invalidatingExecutiveOrderNo.127,didnotcountenanceillegalremovals
4.RepublicActNo.6656protectssecurityoftenureinthecourseofreorganizations.
TheCourt'sruling
Reorganization,FundamentalPrinciplesof.
I.
ThecoreprovisionoflawinvolvedisSection16ArticleXVIII,ofthe1987Constitution.Wequote:
Sec. 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a result of the
reorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch25,1986andthereorganizationfollowingthe
ratification of this Constitution shag be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other
benefitsaccruingtothemunderthelawsofgeneralapplicationinforceatthetimeoftheirseparation.In
lieulthereof,attheoptionoftheemployees,theymaybeconsideredforemploymentintheGovernmentor
in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including governmentowned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation,
tenderedinlinewiththeexistingpolicy,hadbeenaccepted.63
The Court considers the above provision critical for two reasons: (1) It is the only provision in so far as it
mentionsremovalsnotforcausethatwouldarguablysupportthechallengeddismissalsbymerenotice,and
(2)Itisthesingleexistinglawonreorganizationaftertheratificationofthe1987Charter,exceptRepublicActNo.
6656,whichcamemuchlater,onJune10,1988.[NotabeenExecutiveOrdersNo.116(coveringtheMinistryof
Agriculture & Food), 117 (Ministry of Education, Culture & Sports), 119 (Health), 120 (Tourism), 123 (Social
Welfare&Development),124(PublicWorks&Highways),125transportation&Communications),126(Labor&
Employment),127(Finance),128(Science&Technology),129(AgrarianReform),131(NaturalResources),132
(ForeignAffairs),and133(Trade&Industry)wereallpromulgatedonJanuary30,1987,priortotheadoptionof
theConstitutiononFebruary2,1987].64
ItisalsotobeobservedthatunlikethegrantsofpowertoeffectreorganizationsunderthepastConstitutions,the
above provision comes as a mere recognition of the right of the Government to reorganize its offices, bureaus,
andinstrumentalities.UnderSection4,ArticleXVI,ofthe1935Constitution:
Section4.AllofficersandemployeesintheexistingGovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsshallcontinuein
office until the Congress shall provide otherwise, but all officers whose appointments are by this
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Constitution vested in the President shall vacate their respective office(s) upon the appointment and
qualificationoftheirsuccessors,ifsuchappointmentismadewithinaperiodofoneyearfromthedateof
theinaugurationoftheCommonwealthofthePhilippines.65
UnderSection9,ArticleXVII,ofthe1973Charter:
Section 9. All officials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall
continueinofficeuntilotherwiseprovidedbylawordecreedbytheincumbentPresidentofthePhilippines,
butallofficialswhoseappointmentsarebythisConstitutionvestedinthePrimeMinistershallvacatetheir
respectiveofficesupontheappointmentandqualificationoftheirsuccessors.66
TheFreedomConstitutionis,asearlierseen,couchedinsimilarlanguage:
SECTION2.Allelectiveandappointiveofficialsandemployeesunderthe1973Constitutionshallcontinue
in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the appointment and
qualificationoftheirsuccessors,ifsuchismadewithinaperiodofoneyearfromFebruary25,1986.67
Other than references to "reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution," there is no provision for
"automatic"vacanciesunderthe1987Constitution.
Invariably,transitionperiodsarecharacterizedbyprovisionsfor"automatic"vacancies.Theyaredictatedbythe
need to hasten the passage from the old to the new Constitution free from the "fetters" of due process and
securityoftenure.
At this point, we must distinguish removals from separations arising from abolition of office (not by virtue of the
Constitution) as a result of reorganization carried out by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of
functions.Inthelattercase,theGovernmentisobligedtoprovegoodfaith.68Incaseofremovalsundertakento
complywithclearandexplicitconstitutionalmandates,theGovernmentisnothardputtoproveanything,plainly
andsimplybecausetheConstitutionallowsit.
Evidently,thequestioniswhetherornotSection16ofArticleXVIIIofthe1987Constitutionisagrantofalicense
upontheGovernmenttoremovecareerpublicofficialsitcouldhavevalidlydoneunderan"automatic"vacancy
authorityandtoremovethemwithoutrhymeorreason.
Aswehaveseen,since1935,transitionperiodshavebeencharacterizedbyprovisionsfor"automatic"vacancies.
Wetakethesilenceofthe1987ConstitutiononthismatterasarestraintupontheGovernmenttodismisspublic
servantsatamoment'snotice.
Whatis,indeed,apparentisthefactthatifthepresentCharterenvisionedan"automatic"vacancy,itshouldhave
saidsoinclearerterms,asits1935,1973,and1986counterpartshadsostated.
The constitutional "lapse" means either one of two things: (1) The Constitution meant to continue the
reorganizationunderthepriorCharter(oftheRevolutionaryGovernment),inthesensethatthelatterprovidesfor
"automatic" vacancies, or (2) It meant to put a stop to those 'automatic" vacancies. By itself, however, it is
ambiguous, referring as it does to two stages of reorganization the first, to its conferment or authorization
under Proclamation No. 3 (Freedom Charter) and the second, to its implementation on its effectivity date
(February2,1987). Butasweasserted,iftheintentofSection16ofArticleXVIIIofthe1987Constitutionwereto
l w p h 1 . t
extendtheeffectsofreorganizetionundertheFreedomConstitution,itshouldhavesaidsoinclearterms.Itis
illogicalwhyitshouldtalkoftwophasesofreorganizationwhenitcouldhavesimplyacknowledgedthecontinuing
effectofthefirstreorganization.
Second, plainly the concern of Section 16 is to ensure compensation for victims" of constitutional revamps
whetherundertheFreedomorexistingConstitutionandonlysecondarilyandimpliedly,toallowreorganization.
WeturntotherecordsoftheConstitutionalCommission:
INQUIRYOFMR.PADILLA
OnthequeryofMr.PadillawhetherthereisaneedforaspecificreferencetoProclamationNo.3andnot
merelystate"resultofthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationofthisConstitution',Mr.Suarez,onbehalf
oftheCommittee,repliedthatitisnecessary,inasmuchastherearetwostagesofreorganizationcovered
bytheSection.
Mr.PadillapointedoutthatsincetheproposaloftheCommissiononGovernmentReorganizationhavenot
beenimplementedyet,itwouldbebettertousethephrase"reorganizationbeforeoraftertheratificationof
the Constitution' to simplify the Section. Mr. Suarez instead suggested the phrase "as a result of the
reorganization effected before or after the ratification of the Constitution' on the understanding that the
provisionwouldapplytoemployeesterminatedbecauseofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
3andeventhoseaffectedbythereorganizationduringtheMarcosregime.Additionally,Mr.Suarezpointed
out that it is also for this reason that the Committee specified the two Constitutions the Freedom
Constitutionandthe1986[1987]Constitution.69
Simply, the provision benefits career civil service employees separated from the service. And the separation
contemplatedmustbeduetoortheresultof(1)thereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch
25,1986,(2)thereorganizationfromFebruary2,1987,and(3)theresignationsofcareerofficerstenderedinline
with the existing policy and which resignations have been accepted. The phrase "not for cause" is clearly and
primarilyexclusionary,toexcludethosecareercivilserviceemployeesseparated"forcause."Inotherwords,in
order to be entitled to the benefits granted under Section 16 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1987, two
requisites,onenegativeandtheotherpositive,mustconcur,towit:
1.theseparationmustnotbeforcause,and
2.theseparationmustbeduetoanyofthethreesituationsmentionedabove.
By its terms, the authority to remove public officials under the Provisional Constitution ended on February 25,
1987,advancedbyjurisprudencetoFebruary2,1987.70ItCanonlymean,then,thatwhateverreorganizationis
takingplaceisupontheauthorityofthepresentCharter,andnecessarily,uponthemantleofitsprovisionsand
safeguards. Hence, it can not be legitimately stated that we are merely continuing what the revolutionary
Constitution of the Revolutionary Government had started. We are through with reorganization under the
Freedom Constitution the first stage. We are on the second stage that inferred from the provisions of
Section16ofArticleXVIIIofthepermanentbasicdocument.
ThisisconfirmednotonlybythedeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommission,supra,butisapparentfromthe
Charter's own words. It also warrants our holding in Esguerra and PalmaFernandez, in which we categorically
declaredthatafterFebruary2,1987,incumbentofficialsandemployeeshaveacquiredsecurityoftenure,which
isnotadeterrentagainstseparationbyreorganizationunderthequondamfundamentallaw.
Finally, there is the concern of the State to ensure that this reorganization is no "purge" like the execrated
reorganizationsundermartialrule.And,ofcourse,wealsohavethedemocraticcharacteroftheCharteritself.
Commissioner Mison would have had a point, insofar as he contends that the reorganization is openended
("progressive"), had it been a reorganization under the revolutionary authority, specifically of the Provisional
Constitution. For then, the power to remove government employees would have been truly wide ranging and
limitless, not only because Proclamation No. 3 permitted it, but because of the nature of revolutionary authority
itself,itstotalitariantendencies,andthemonopolyofpowerinthemenandwomenwhowieldit.
What must be understood, however, is that notwithstanding her immense revolutionary powers, the President
was, nevertheless, magnanimous in her rule. This is apparent from Executive Order No. 17, which established
safeguardsagainstthestrongarmandruthlesspropensitythataccompaniesreorganizationsnotwithstanding
the fact that removals arising therefrom were "not for cause," and in spite of the fact that such removals would
havebeenvalidandunquestionable.Despitethat,theChiefExecutivesaw,aswesaid,the"unnecessaryanxiety
anddemoralization"inthegovernmentrankandfilethatreorganizationwascausing,andprescribedguidelines
forpersonnelaction.Specifically,shesaidonMay28,1986:
WHEREAS,inordertoobviateunnecessaryanxietyanddemoralizationamongthedeservingofficialsand
employees,particularlyinthecareercivilservice,itisnecessarytoprescribetherulesandregulationsfor
implementing the said constitutional provision to protect career civil servants whose qualifications and
performance meet the standards of service demanded by the New Government, and to ensure that only
thosefoundcorrupt,inefficientandundeservingareseparatedfromthegovernmentservice71
Noteworthy is the injunction embodied in the Executive Order that dismissals should be made on the basis of
findingsofinefficiency,graft,andunfitnesstorenderpublicservice.*
ThePresident'sMemorandumofOctober14,1987shouldfurthermorebeconsidered.Wequote,inpart:
FurthertotheMemorandumdatedOctober2,1987onthesamesubject,Ihaveorderedthattherewillbe
nofurtherlayoffsthisyearofpersonnelasaresultofthegovernmentreorganization.72
Assuming, then, that this reorganization allows removals "not for cause" in a manner that would have been
permissibleinarevolutionarysettingasCommissionerMisonsopurports,itwouldseemthattheCommissioner
wouldhavebeenpowerless,inanyevent,toorderdismissalsattheCustomsBureauleftandright.Hence,evenif
we accepted his "progressive" reorganization theory, he would still have to come to terms with the Chief
Executive'ssubsequentdirectivesmoderatingtherevolutionaryauthority'splenarypowertoseparategovernment
officialsandemployees.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Reorganizationunderthe1987Constitution,Nature,Extent,andLimitationsofJosev.Arroyo,clarified.
The controversy seems to be that we have, ourselves, supposedly extended the effects of government
reorganizationundertheProvisionalConstitutiontotheregimeofthe1987Constitution.Josev.Arroyo73issaid
tobetheauthorityforthisargument.Evidently,ifArroyoindeedsoruled,Arroyowouldbeinconsistentwiththe
earlier pronouncement of Esguerra and the later holding of PalmaFernandez. The question, however, is: Did
Arroyo, in fact, extend the effects of reorganization under the revolutionary Charter to the era of the new
Constitution?
There are a few points about Arroyo that have to be explained. First, the opinion expressed therein that "[b]y
virtueofsaidprovisionthereorganizationoftheBureauofCustomsunderExecutiveOrderNo.127maycontinue
even after the ratification of this constitution and career civil service employees may be separated from the
service without cause as a result of such reorganization" 74 is in the nature of an obiter dictum. We dismissed
Jose'spetition 75primarilybecauseitwas"clearlypremature,speculative,andpurelyanticipatory,basedmerely
onnewspaperreportswhichdonotshowanydirectorthreatenedinjury," 76itappearingthatthereorganization
of the Bureau of Customs had not been, then, set in motion. Jose therefore had no cause for complaint, which
was enough basis to dismiss the petition. The remark anent separation "without cause" was therefore not
necessary for the disposition of the case. In Morales v. Parades,77 it was held that an obiterdictum "lacks the
forceofanadjudicationandshouldnotordinarilyberegardedassuch."78
Secondly,ArroyoisanunsignedresolutionwhilePalmaFernandezisafullblowndecision,althoughbothareen
banccases.WhilearesolutionoftheCourtisnolessforcefulthanadecision,thelatterhasaspecialweight.
Thirdly,PalmaFernandezv.DelaPazcomesasalaterdoctrine.(Josev.ArroyowaspromulgatedonAugust11,
1987 while PalmaFernandez was decided on August 31, 1987.) It is wellestablished that a later judgment
supersedesaprioroneincaseofaninconsistency.
As we have suggested, the transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution allude to two stages of the
reorganization, the first stage being the reorganization under Proclamation No. 3 which had already been
consummated the second stage being that adverted to in the transitory provisions themselves which is
underway. Hence, when we spoke, in Arroyo, of reorganization after the effectivity of the new Constitution, we
referred to the second stage of the reorganization. Accordingly, we cannot be said to have carried over
reorganizationundertheFreedomConstitutiontoits1987counterpart.
Finally,ArroyoisnotnecessarilyincompatiblewithPalmaFernandez(orEsguerra).
As we have demonstrated, reorganization under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution is not as stern as
reorganization under the prior Charter. Whereas the latter, sans the President's subsequently imposed
constraints, envisioned a purgation, the same cannot be said of the reorganization inferred under the new
Constitution because, precisely, the new Constitution seeks to usher in a democratic regime. But even if we
concedeexgratiaargumenti that Section 16 is an exception to due process and noremoval"except for cause
providedbylaw"principlesenshrinedintheverysame1987Constitution, 79whichmaypossiblyjustifyremovals
"notforcause,"thereisnocontradictionintermsherebecause,whiletheformerConstitutionlefttheaxetofall
where it might, the present organic act requires that removals "not for cause" must be as a result of
reorganization.Asweobserved,theConstitutiondoesnotprovidefor"automatic"vacancies.Itmustalsopassthe
testofgoodfaithatestnotobviouslyrequiredundertherevolutionarygovernmentformerlyprevailing,buta
testwellestablishedindemocraticsocietiesandinthisgovernmentunderademocraticCharter.
When, therefore, Arroyo permitted a reorganization under Executive Order No. 127 after the ratification of the
1987Constitution,Arroyopermittedareorganizationprovidedthatitisdoneingoodfaith.Otherwise,securityof
tenurewouldbeaninsuperableimplement.80
Reorganizationsinthisjurisdictionhavebeenregardedasvalidprovidedtheyarepursuedingoodfaith. 81Asa
general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make
bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation actually occurs
becausethepositionitselfceasestoexist.Andinthatcase,securityoftenurewouldnotbeaChinesewall.Be
thatasitmay,ifthe"abolition,"whichisnothingelsebutaseparationorremoval,isdoneforpoliticalreasonsor
purposely to defeat sty of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid "abolition' takes place and whatever
"abolition' is done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is merely a change of
nomenclatureofpositions,82orwhereclaimsofeconomyarebeliedbytheexistenceofamplefunds.83
It is to be stressed that by predisposing a reorganization to the yardstick of good faith, we are not, as a
consequence,imposinga"cause"forrestructuring.Retrenchmentinthecourseofareorganizationingoodfaith
isstillremoval"notforcause,"ifby"cause"wereferto"grounds"orconditionsthatcallfordisciplinaryaction.**
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Good faith, as a component of a reorganization under a constitutional regime, is judged from the facts of each
case.However,underRepublicActNo.6656,wearetold:
SEC.2.Noofficeroremployeeinthecareerserviceshallberemovedexceptforavalidcauseandafter
duenoticeandhearing.Avalidcauseforremovalexistswhen,pursuanttoabonafide reorganization, a
position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate
positionsinordertomeettheexigenciesoftheservice,orotherlawfulcausesallowedbytheCivilService
Law.Theexistenceofanyorsomeofthefollowingcircumstancesmaybeconsideredasevidenceofbad
faith in the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or
reappointmentbyanaggrievedparty:(a)Wherethereisasignificantincreaseinthenumberofpositionsin
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 (e) Where the removal violates the order of
separationprovidedinSection3hereof.84
ItisinlighthereofthatwetakeupquestionsaboutCommissionerMison'sgoodfaith,orlackofit.
ReorganizationoftheBureauofCustoms,
LackofGoodFaithin.
TheCourtfindsthatafterFebruary2,1987noperceptiblerestructuringoftheCustomshierarchyexceptfor
the change of personnel has occurred, which would have justified (an things being equal) the contested
dismisses.ThecontentionthatthestaffingpatternattheBureau(whichwouldhavefurnishedajustificationfora
personnel movement) is the same s pattern prescribed by Section 34 of Executive Order No. 127 already
prevailing when Commissioner Mison took over the Customs helm, has not been successfully contradicted 85
There is no showing that legitimate structural changes have been made or a reorganization actually
undertaken,forthatmatterattheBureausinceCommissionerMisonassumedoffice,whichwouldhavevalidly
prompted him to hire and fire employees. There can therefore be no actual reorganization to speak of, in the
sense, say, of reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or
redundancyoffunctions,butarevampofpersonnelpureandsimple.
TherecordsindeedshowthatCommissionerMisonseparatedabout394Customspersonnelbutreplacedthem
with 522 as of August 18, 1988. 86 This betrays a clear intent to "pack" the Bureau of Customs. He did so,
furthermore,indefianceofthePresident'sdirectivetohaltfurtherlayoffsasaconsequenceofreorganization. 87
Finally,hewasawarethatlayoffsshouldobservetheprocedurelaiddownbyExecutiveOrderNo.17.
Wearenot,ofcourse,strikingdownExecutiveOrderNo.127forrepugnancytotheConstitution.Whiletheactis
valid,stillandall,themeanswithwhichitwasimplementedisnot.88
ExecutiveOrderNo.127,SpecificCaseof.
With respect to Executive Order No. 127, Commissioner Mison submits that under Section 59 thereof, "[t]hose
incumbentswhosepositionsarenotincludedthereinorwhoarenotreappointedshallbedeemedseparatedfrom
the service." He submits that because the 394 removed personnel have not been "reappointed," they are
considered terminated. To begin with, the Commissioner's appointing power is subject to the provisions of
ExecutiveOrderNo.39.UnderExecutiveOrderNo.39,theCommissionerofCustomsmay"appointallBureau
personnel,exceptthoseappointedbythePresident."89
Accordingly, with respect to Deputy Commissioners Cesar Dario and Vicente Feria, Jr., Commissioner Mison
couldnothavevalidlyterminatedthem,theybeingPresidentialappointees.
Secondly,andaswehaveasserted,Section59hasbeenrenderedinoperativeaccordingtoourholdinginPalma
Fernandez.
That Customs employees, under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 had been on a mere holdover status
cannotmeanthatthepositionsheldbythemhadbecomevacant.InPalmaFernandez,wesaidinnouncertain
terms:
Theargumentthat,onthebasisofthisprovision,petitioner'stermofofficeendedon30January1987and
thatshecontinuedintheperformanceofherdutiesmerelyinaholdovercapacityandcouldbetransferred
toanotherpositionwithoutviolatinganyofherlegalrights,isuntenable.Theoccupancyofapositionina
holdovercapacitywasconceivedtofacilitatereorganizationandwouldhavelapsedon25February1987
(undertheProvisionalConstitution),butadvancedtoFebruary2,1987whenthe1987Constitutionbecame
effective(DeLeon.etal.,vs.Hon.BenjaminB.Esquerra,et.al.,G.R.No.78059,31August1987).After
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
thesaiddatetheprovisionsofthelatteronsecurityoftenuregovern.90
Itshouldbeseen,finally,thatwearenotbarringCommissionerMisonfromcarryingoutareorganizationunder
thetransitoryprovisionsofthe1987Constitution.Butsuchareorganizationshouldbesubjecttothecriterionof
goodfaith.
Resume.
Inresume,werestateasfollows:
1. The President could have validly removed government employees, elected or appointed, without cause but
only before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987 (De Leon v. Esguerra, supra Palma
Fernandez vs. De la Paz, supra) in this connection, Section 59 (on nonreappointment of incumbents) of
ExecutiveOrderNo.127cannotbeabasisfortermination
2.Insuchacase,dismissedemployeesshallbepaidseparationandretirementbenefitsorupontheiroptionbe
givenreemploymentopportunities(CONST.[1987],art.XVIII,sec.16Rep.ActNo.6656,sec.9)
3. From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose the right to reorganize the Government resulting in the
separationofcareercivilserviceemployees[CONST.(1987),supra]provided,thatsuchareorganizationismade
ingoodfaith.(Rep.ActNo.6656,supra.)
G.R.No.83737
ThisdispositionalsoresolvesG.R.No.83737.Aswehaveindicated,G.R.No.83737isachallengetothevalidity
ofRepublicActNo.6656.Inbrief,itisarguedthattheAct,insofarasitstrengthenssecurityoftenure 91andas
farasitprovidesforaretroactiveeffect, 92 runs counter to the transitory provisions of the new Constitution on
removalsnotforcause.
ItcanbeseenthattheAct,insofarasitprovidesforreinstatamentofemployeesseparatedwithout"avalidcause
andafterduenoticeandhearing"93isnotcontrarytothetransitoryprovisionsofthenewConstitution.TheCourt
reiterates that although the Charter's transitory provisions mention separations "not for cause," separations
thereunder must nevertheless be on account of a valid reorganization and which do not come about
automatically. Otherwise, security of tenure may be invoked. Moreover, it can be seen that the statute itself
recognizes removals without cause. However, it also acknowledges the possibility of the leadership using the
artifice of reorganization to frustrate security of tenure. For this reason, it has installed safeguards. There is
nothingunconstitutionalabouttheAct.
We recognize the injury Commissioner Mison's replacements would sustain. We also commisserate with them.
But our concern is the greater wrong inflicted on the dismissed employees on account of their regal separation
fromthecivilservice.
WHEREFORE, THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DATED JUNE 30, 1988,
SEPTEMBER20,1988,NOVEMBER16,1988,INVOLVEDING.R.NOS.85310,85335,AND86241,ANDMAY8,
1989,INVOLVEDING.R.NO.85310,AREAFFIRMED.
THE PETITIONS IN G.R. NOS. 81954, 81967, 82023, AND 85335 ARE GRANTED. THE PETITIONS IN G.R.
NOS.83737,85310AND86241AREDISMISSED.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IS ORDERED TO REINSTATE THE EMPLOYEES SEPARATED AS A

RESULTOFHISNOTICESDATEDJANUARY26,1988.
THE EMPLOYEES WHOM COMMISSIONER MISON MAY HAVE APPOINTED AS REPLACEMENTS ARE
ORDEREDTOVACATETHEIRPOSTSSUBJECTTOTHEPAYMENTOFWHATEVERBENEFITSTHATMAYBE
PROVIDEDBYLAW.
NOCOSTS.
ITISSOORDERED.
Gutierrez,Jr.,Paras,Gancayco,Bidin,Cortes,GrioAquinoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.
Padilla,J.,tooknopart.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
SeparateOpinions
CRUZ,J.,concurring:
I concur with the majority view so ably presented by Mr. Justice Abraham F. Sarmiento. While additional
commentsmayseemsuperfluousinviewoftheexhaustivenessofhisponencia,Ineverthelessofferthefollowing
briefobservationsforwhatevertheymaybeworth.
EmphasizingArticleXVII,Section16oftheConstitution,thedissentingopinionconsiderstheongoinggovernment
reorganizationvalidbecauseitismerelyacontinuationofthereorganizationbegunduringthetransitionperiod.
Thereasonforthisconclusionisthephrase"andthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationoftheConstitution,"
thatistosay,afterFebruary2,1987,appearinginthesaidprovision.Theconsequence(andIhopeIhavenot
misread it) is that the present reorganization may still be undertaken with the same "absoluteness" that was
allowedtherevolutionaryreorganizationalthoughtheFreedomConstitutionisnolongerinforce.
Reorganizationofthegovernmentmayberequiredbythelegislatureevenindependentlyofspecificconstitutional
authorization, as in the case, for example, of R.A. No. 51 and B.P. No. 129. Being revolutionary in nature, the
reorganizationdecreedbyArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitutionwasunlimitedastoitsmethodexceptonlyasit
was later restricted by President Aquino herself through various issuances, particularly E.O. No. 17. But this
reorganization,forallitspermittedsummariness,wasnotindefinite.UnderSection3ofthesaidArticleIII,itwas
allowed only up to February 29,1987 (which we advanced to February 2, 1987, when the new Constitution
becameeffective).
The clear implication is that any government reorganization that may be undertaken thereafter must be
authorized by the legislature only and may not be allowed the special liberties and protection enjoyed by the
revolutionaryreorganization.Otherwise,therewouldhavebeennonecessityatallforthetimelimitationexpressly
prescribedbytheFreedomConstitution.
IcannotaccepttheviewthatSection16isanauthorizationfortheopenendedreorganizationofthegovernment
"followingtheratificationoftheConstitution."Ireadtheprovisionasmerelyconferringbenefitsdeservedlyor
notonpersonsseparatedfromthegovernmentasaresultofthereorganizationofthegovernment,whether
undertakenduringthetransitionperiodorasaresultofalawpassedthereafter.Whatthegrantsisprivilegesto
the retirees, not power to the provision government. It is axiomatic that grants of power are not lightly inferred,
especiallyiftheseimpingeonindividualrights,andIdonotseewhyweshoulddepartfromthisrule.
To hold that the present reorganization is a continuation of the one begun during the transition period is to
recognize the theory of the public respondent that all officers and employees not separated earlier remain in a
holdovercapacityonlyandsomaybereplacedatanytimeevenwithoutcause.Thatisadangerousproposition
that threatens the security and stability of every civil servant in the executive department. What is worse is that
thissituationmaycontinueindefinitelyastheclaimed"progressive"reorganizationhasnolimitationastotime.
Removalimportstheforcibleseparationoftheincumbentbeforetheexpirationofhistermandcanbedoneonly
for cause as provided by law. Contrary to common belief, a reorganization does not result in removal but in a
differentmodeofterminatingofficialrelationsknownasabolitionoftheoffice(andthesecurityoftenureattached
thereto.)Theerstwhileholderoftheabolishedofficecannotclaimhehasbeenremovedwithoutcauseinviolation
ofhisconstitutionalsecurityoftenure.Thereasonisthattherightitselfhasdisappearedwiththeabolishedoffice
asanaccessoryfollowingtheprincipal.(Ocampov.Sec.ofJustice,51O.G.147DelaLlanav.Alba,112SCRA
294Manalangv.Quitoriano,94Phil.903.)
Thisnotwithstanding,thepowertoreorganizeisnotunlimited.Itisessentialthatitbebasedonavalidpurpose,
such as the promotion of efficiency and economy in the government through a pruning of offices or the
streamliningoftheirfunctions.(Cervantesv.AuditorGeneral,91Phil.359.)Normally,areorganizationcannotbe
validlyundertakenasameansofpurgingtheundesirablesforthiswouldbearemovalindisguiseundertakenen
massetocircumventtheconstitutionalrequirementoflegalcause.(Eradicationofgraftandcorruptionwasoneof
the expressed purposes of the revolutionary organization, but this was authorized by the Freedom Constitution
itself.) In short, a reorganization, to be valid, must be done in good faith. (Urgelio v. Osmena, 9 SCRA 317
Cunetav.CourtofAppeals,1SCRA663Carinov.ACCFA,18SCRA183.)
A mere recitation no matter how lengthy of the directives, guidelines, memoranda, etc. issued by the
government and the action purportedly taken thereunder does not by itself prove good faith. We know only too
well that these instructions, for all their noble and sterile purposes, are rarely followed in their actual
implementation.Therealityinthiscase,asthemajorityopinionhaspointedoutandasclearlyestablishedinthe
hearing we held, is that the supposed reorganization was undertaken with an eye not to achieving the avowed
objectivesbuttoaccommodatingnewappointeesattheexpenseofthedislodgedpetitioners.Thatwasalsothe
findingoftheCivilServiceCommission,towhichwemustaccordabecomingrespectastheconstitutionaloffice
chargedwiththeprotectionofthecivilservicefromtheevilsofthespoilssystem.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Thepresentadministrationdeservesfullsupportinitsdesiretoimprovethecivilservice,butthisobjectivemust
bepursuedinamannerconsistentwiththeConstitution.Thispraiseworthypurposecannotbeaccomplishedby
anindiscriminatereorganizationthatwillsweepinitswaketheinnocentalongwiththeredundantandinept,for
thebenefitofthecurrentfavorites.
MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,dissenting:
ThehistoricalunderpinningsofGovernmenteffortsatreorganizationharkbacktothepeoplepowerphenomenon
of2224February1986,andProclamationNo.1ofPresidentCorazonC.Aquino,issuedon25February1986,
stating in no uncertain terms that "the people expect a reorganization of government." In its wake followed
Executive Order No. 5, issued on 12 March 1986, "Creating a Presidential Commission on Government
Reorganization,"withthefollowingrelevantprovisions:
WHEREAS,thereisneedtoeffectthenecessaryandproperchangesintheorganizationalandfunctional
structuresofthenationalandlocalgovernments,itsagenciesandinstrumentalities,includinggovernment
owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, in order to promote economy, efficiency and
effectivenessinthedeliveryofpublicservices
xxxxxxxxx
Section2.ThefunctionaljurisdictionofthePCGRshallencompass,asnecessary,thereorganizationofthe
national and local governments, its agencies and instrumentalities including governmentowned or
controlledcorporationsandtheirsubsidiaries.
xxxxxxxxx(Emphasissupplied)
SucceedingitwasProclamationNo.3,dated25March1986,alsoknownastheFreedomConstitution,declaring,
inpart,initsPreambleasfollows:
WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action demands the
completereorganizationofthegovernment,...(Emphasissupplied)
andpertinentlyproviding:
ARTICLEII
SectionI
xxxxxxxxx
(a)Completely reorganize the government and eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all
iniquitousvestigesofthepreviousregime"(Emphasissupplied)
xxxxxxxxx
ARTICLEIIIGOVERNMENTREORGANIZATION
Section2.Allelectiveandappointiveofficialsandemployeesunderthe1973Constitutionshallcontinuein
officeuntilotherwiseprovidedbyproclamationorexecutiveorderoruponthedesignationorappointment
andqualificationoftheirsuccessors,ifsuchismadewithinaperiodofoneyearfromFebruary25,1986.
Section 3. Any public office or employee separated from the service as a result of the reorganization
otherbenefitsaccruingthereunder.(Emphasisours)
On28May1986,ExecutiveOrderNo.17wasissued"PrescribingRulesandRegulationsfortheImplementation
ofSection2,ArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution'providing,interalia,asfollows:
Section1.InthecourseofimplementingArticleIII,Section2oftheFreedomConstitution,theHeadofeach
Ministry shall see to it that the separation or replacement of officers and employees is made only for
justifiable reasons, to prevent indiscriminate dismissal, of personnel in the career civil service whose
qualificationsandperformancemeetthestandardsofpublicserviceoftheNewGovernment.
xxxxxxxxx
TheMinistryconcernedshalladoptitsownrulesandproceduresforthereviewandassessmentofitsown
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
personnel, including the identification of sensitive positions which require more rigid assessment of the
incumbents, and shall complete such review/assessment as expeditiously as possible but not later than
February24,1987topreventunduedemoralizationinthepublicservice.
Section2.TheMinistryHeadconcerned,onthebasisofsuchreviewandassessmentshalldeterminewho
shall be separated from the service. Thereafter, he shall issue to the official or employee concerned a
noticeofseparationwhichshallindicatethereinthereason/sorground/sforsuchseparationandthefact
that the separated official or employee has the right to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to this
Order.Separationfromtheserviceshallbeeffectiveuponreceiptofsuchnotice,eitherpersonallybythe
officialoremployeeconcernedoronhisbehalfbyapersonofsufficientdiscretion.
Section3.Thefollowingshallbethegroundsforseparation/replacementofpersonnel:
1.ExistenceofacaseforsummarydismissalpursuanttoSection40oftheCivilServiceLaw
2. Existence of a probable cause for violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practice Act as
determinedbytheMinistryHeadconcerned
3.Grossincompetenceorinefficiencyinthedischargeoffunctions
4.MisuseofPublicofficeforpartisanpoliticalpurposes
5.Anyotheranalogousgroundshowingthattheincumbentisunfittoremainintheserviceor
hisseparation/replacementisintheinterestoftheservice.
Section11.ThisExecutiveOrdershallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them,

presidentialappointees,casualandcontractualemployees,orofficialsandemployeesremovedpursuantto
disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Service Law and rules, and to those laid off as a result of the
reorganizationundertakenpursuanttoExecutiveOrderNo.5.(Emphasissupplied)
On6August1986,ExecutiveOrderNo.39wasissuedbythePresident"EnlargingthePowersandFunctionsof
theCommissionerofCustoms",asfollows:
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 1. In addition to the powers and functions of the Commissioner of Customs, he is hereby
authorized,subjecttotheCivilServiceLawanditsimplementingrulesandregulations:
a)ToappointallBureaupersonnel,exceptthoseappointedbythePresident
b)Todiscipline,suspend,dismissorotherwisepenalizeerringBureauofficersandemployees
c)Toactonallmatterspertainingtopromotion,transfer,detail,reassignment,reinstatement,
reemploymentandotherpersonnelaction,involvingofficersandemployeesoftheBureauof
Customs.
xxxxxxxxx
On30January1987,ExecutiveOrderNo.127wasissued"ReorganizingtheMinistryofFinance."SimilarOrders,
approximately thirteen (13) in all, 1 were issued in respect of the other executive departments. The relevant
provisionsrelativetotheBureauofCustomsread:
RECALLINGthatthereorganizationofthegovernmentismandatedexpresslyinArticleII,Sectionl(a)and
ArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution
HAVING IN MIND that pursuant to Executive Order No. 5 (1986), it is directed that the necessary and
proper changes in the organizational and functional structures of the government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, be effected in order to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public
services
BELIEVING that it is necessary to reorganize the Ministry of Finance to make it more capable and
responsive,organizationallyandfunctionally,initsprimarymandateofjudiciouslygeneratingandefficiently
managingthefinancialresourcesoftheGovernment,itssubdivisionsandinstrumentalitiesinordertoattain
thesocioeconomicobjectivesofthenationaldevelopmentprograms.
xxxxxxxxx
SEC. 2. Reorganization. The Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as Ministry, is hereby

1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
reorganized,structurallyandfunctionally,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisExecutiveOrder.
SEC.33.BureauofCustoms.
...ExecutiveOrderNo.39dated6August1986whichgrantsautonomytotheCommissionerofCustomsin
mattersofappointmentanddisciplineofCustomspersonnelshallremainineffect.
SEC. 55. Abolition of Units Integral to Ministry. All units not included in the structural organization as
hereinprovidedandallpositionsthereofareherebydeemedabolished....Theirpersonnelshallbeentitled
tothebenefitsprovidedinthesecondparagraphofSection59hereof.
SEC.59.NewStructureandPattern.UponapprovalofthisExecutiveOrder,theofficersandemployees
oftheMinistryshall,inaholdovercapacity,continuetoperformtheirrespectivedutiesandresponsibilities
and receive the corresponding salaries and benefits unless in the meantime they are separated from
governmentservicepursuanttoexecutiveOrderNo.17(1986)orarticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution.
The new position structure and staffing pattern of the ministry shall be approved and prescribed by the
benefitstowhichtheymaybeentitledundertheexistinglaws,rulesandregulations.Otherwise,theyshall
bepaidtheequivalentofonemonthbasicsalaryforeveryyearofserviceortheequivalentnearestfraction
thereoffavorabletothemonthebasisofhighestsalaryreceived,butinnocaseshallsuchpaymentexceed
Nocourtoradministrativebodyshallissueanywritorpreliminaryjunctionorrestrainingordertoenjointhe
separation/replacementofanyofficeroremployeeaffectedunderthisExecutiveOrder.
Section 67 All laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and other issuances or parts thereof, which are
inconsistentwiththisExecutiveOrder,areherebyrepealedormodifiedaccordingly.
xxxxxxxxx(Emphasisours)
On2February1987,thepresentConstitutiontookeffect(DeLeon,etal.,vs.Esguerra,G.R.No.78059,August
31,1987153SCRA602).ReorganizationintheGovernmentservicepursuanttoProclamationNo.3,supra,was
providedforinitsSection16,ArticleXVIIIentitledTransitoryProvisions,reading:
Section16.Careercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcausebutasaresultofthe
ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other
lieuthereof,attheoptionoftheemployees,theymaybeconsideredforemploymentintheGovernmentor
in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government owned or controlled
corporationsandtheirsubsidiaries.Msprovisionalsoappliestocareerofficerswhoseresignation,tendered
inlinewiththeexistingpolicy,hasbeenaccepted.
On 24 May 1987 the then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander A. Padilla, transmitted to the Department of
Finance for approval the proposed "position structure and staffing pattern" of the Bureau of Customs. Said
Department gave its imprimatur. Thereafter, the staffing pattern was transmitted to and approved by the
DepartmentofBudgetandManagementon7September1987forimplementation.Undertheoldstaffingpattern,
therewere7,302positionswhileunderthenewstaffingpattern,thereare6,530positionsCSCResolutioninCSC
CaseNo.1,dated20September1988,pp.34).
On22September1987,SalvadorM.MisonassumedofficeasCommissionerofCustoms.
On 2 October 1987 "Malacanang Memorandum Re: Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization

ExecutiveOrders"wasissuedreading,insofarasrevelanttothesecases,asfollows:
It is my concern that ongoing process of government reorganization be conducted in a manner that is

expeditious,aswellassensitivetothedislocatingconsequencesarisingfromspecificpersonneldecisions.
The entire process of reorganization, and in particular the process of separation from service, must be
carriedoutinthemosthumanemannerpossible.
Forthispurpose,thefollowingguidelinesshallbestrictlyfollowed:
1. By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive Orders for each agency on
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
reorganizationshallbe:
a.informedoftheirreappointmentor
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartment/agencyor
c.informedoftheirtermination.
2.Intheeventofanofferforalowerposition,therewillbenoreductioninthesalary.
xxxxxxxxx
4. Each department/agency shall constitute a Reorganization Appeals Board at the central

office,onorbeforeOctober21,1987,torevieworreconsiderappealsorcomplaintsrelativeto
reorganization. All cases submitted to the Boards shall be resolved subject to the following
guidelines:
a.publicationorpostingoftheappealprocedurepromulgatedbytheDepartmentSecretary
b.adherencetodueprocess
c.dispositionwithin30daysfromsubmissionofthecase
dwrittennotificationoftheactiontakenandthegroundsthereof.
ActionbytheAppealsReviewBoarddoesnotprecludeappealtotheCivilServiceCommission.
5.Placementinthenewstaffingpatternofincumbentpersonnelshallbecompletedpriortothe
hiringofnewpersonnel,ifany.
On 25 November 1987 Commissioner Mison wrote the President requesting a grace period until the end of
February 1988 within which to completely undertake the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs pursuant to
Executive Order No. 127 dated 30 January 1987. Said request was granted in a letterreply by Executive
SecretaryCatalinoMacaraig,Jr.,dated22December1987.
On6January1988,withintheextendedperiodrequested,BureauofCustomsMemorandum"Re:Guidelineson
the Implementation of Reorganization Executive Orders" was issued in the same tenor as the Malacanang
Memorandumof2October1987,providinginteralia:
To effectively implement the reorganization at the Bureau of Customs, particularly in the selection and
placement of personnel, and insure that the best qualified and most competent personnel in the career
serviceareretained,thefollowingguidelinesareherebyprescribedfortheguidanceofallconcerned
1. By February 28, 1988 all employees covered by Executive Order No. 127 and the grace period
a.informedoftheirreappointment,or
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartmentoragencyor
2.Intheeventoftermination,theemployeeshall:
a.beincludedinaconsolidatedlistcompiledbytheCivilServiceCommission.Alldepartments
whoarerecruitingshallgivepreferencetotheemployeesinthelistand
b.continuetoreceivesalaryandbenefitsuntilFebruary28,1988,and
c.beguaranteedthereleaseofseparationbenefitswithin45daysfromterminationandinno
caselaterthanJune15,1988.
Itistobenotedthatparagraph1aboveanditssubsectionsreproducedverbatimtheMalacanangGuidelinesof
2October1987inthattheemployeesconcernedweremerelytobeinformedoftheirtermination.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
On28January1988CommissionerMisonaddressedidenticallettersofterminationtoBureauofCustomsofficers
andemployeeseffectiveon28February1988.
Asof18August1988,CommissionerMisonappointedfivehundredtwentytwo(522)officialsandemployeesof
theBureauofCustoms(CSCResolutioninCSCCaseNo.1,dated20September1988,p.6).Infact,inaletter
dated27January1988,CommissionerMisonrecommendedJoseM.BaldeforappointmenttoPresidentAquino
asoneofthree(3)DeputyCommissionersunderExecutiveOrderNo.127.
In the interim, during the pendency of these Petitions, Republic Act No. 6656, entitled "An Act to Protect the
SecurityofTenureofCivilServiceOfficersandEmployeesintheImplementationofGovernmentReorganization"
waspassedbyCongresson9June1988.ThePresidentsigneditintolawon10June1988andthestatutetook
effecton29June1988.
On20June1988Motionswerefiled,inthesecasespendingbeforethisCourt,invokingtheprovisionsofRepublic
ActNo.6656.Therelevantprovisionsthereofread:
SECTION 1. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect the security of tenure of civil service
officersandemployeesinthereorganizationofthevariousagenciesoftheNationalgovernment....
SECTION2.No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and
afterduenoticeandhearing.Avalidcauseforremovalexistswhen,pursuanttoabonafidereorganization,
a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate
reappointmentbyanaggrievedparty:
(a)Wherethereisasignificantincreaseinthenumberofpositionsinthenewstaffingpatternofthe
departmentoragencyconcerned
(b)Whereanofficeisabolishedandanotherperformingsubstantiallythesamefunctionsiscreated
(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performanceandmerit
(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the
reclassifiedofficesperformsubstantiallythesamefunctionsastheoriginaloffices
(e)WheretheremovalviolatestheorderofseparationprovidedinSection3hereof.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been
separatedinviolationoftheprovisionsofthisAct,shallbeorderedreinstatedorreappointedasthecase
may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also
separated for cause, all officers and employees, including casuals and temporary employees, who have
beenseparatedpursuanttoreorganizationshall,ifentitledthereto,bepaidtheappropriateseparationpay
andretirementandotherbenefitsunderexistinglawswithinninety(90)daysfromthedateoftheeffectivity
of their separation or from the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be:
concerned.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 11. The executive branch of the government shall implement reorganization schemes within a
specifiedperiodoftimeauthorizedbylaw.
In the case of the 1987 reorganization of the executive branch, all departments and agencies which are
authorized by executive orders promulgated by the President to reorganize shall have ninety (90) days
fromtheapprovalofthisActwithinwhichtoimplementtheirrespectivereorganizationplansinaccordance
withtheprovisionsofthisAct.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION13.Alllaws,rulesandregulationsorpartsthereof,inconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthisActare
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
herebyrepealedormodifiedaccordingly.TherightsandbenefitsunderthisActshallberetroactive as of
June30,1987.
Giventheforegoingstatutorybackdrop,theissuescannowbeaddressed.
ScopeofSection16,Art.XVIII,1987Constitution
CrucialtothepresentcontroversyistheconstructiontobegiventotheabovementionedConstitutionalprovision
(SECTION16,forbrevity),whichspeaksof.
Careercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcause
butasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch25,1986
andthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationofthisConstitution...(paragraphingsupplied).
Toourminds,SECTION16clearlyrecognizes(1)thereorganizationauthorizedbyProclamationNo.3(2)
that such separation is NOT FOR CAUSE but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to said
Proclamationand(3)thatthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3maybecontinuedevenafter
theratificationofthe1987Constitutionduringthetransitionperiod.
SeparationNOTFORCAUSE
The canon for the removal or suspension of a civil service officer or employee is that it must be FOR CAUSE.
That means a guarantee of both procedural and substantive due process. Basically, procedural due process
would require that suspension or dismissal come only after notice and hearing. Substantive due process would
requirethatsuspensionordismissalbe'forcause'."BernasTheConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines:A
Commentary,Vol.II,FirstEdition,1988,p.334)
TheguaranteeofremovalFORCAUSEisenshrinedinArticleIXB,Section2(3)ofthe1987Constitution,which
states that 'No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except FOR CAUSE
providedbylaw."
TherecanbenoquestionthenastothemeaningofthephraseFORCAUSE.Itsimplymeanstheobservanceof
both procedural and substantive due process in cases of removal of officers or employees of the civil service.
When SECTION 16 speaks, therefore, of separation from the service NOT FOR CAUSE, it can only mean the
diametrical opposite. The constitutional intent to exempt the separation of civil service employees pursuant to
Proclamation No. 3 from the operation of Article IXB, Section 2(3), becomes readily apparent. A distinction is
explicitly made between removal FOR CAUSE, which as aforestated, requires due process, and dismissal NOT
FORCAUSE,whichimpliesthatthelatterisnotboundbythe"fetters'ofdueprocess.
It is obviously for that reason that Section 16 grants separation pay and retirement benefits to those separated
NOT FOR CAUSE but as a result of the reorganization precisely to soften the impact of the nonobservance of
due process. "What is envisioned in Section 16 is not a remedy for arbitrary removal of civil servants enjoying
securityoftenurebutsomeformofreliefformembersofthecareercivilservicewhomayhavebeenormaybe
legally but involuntarily 'reorganized out' of the service or may have voluntarily resigned pursuant to the
reorganizationpolicy"(ibid.,p.615).
ReorganizationPursuanttoProclamationNo.3toContinueTransitorilyEvenAfterRatification
Byitsverycontext,SECTION16envisagesthecontinuanceofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3
even after ratification of the Constitution and during the transition period. The two [2] stages contemplated,
namely,(1)thestagebeforeand(2)afterratification,refertothesamenatureofseparation"NOTFORCAUSE
but as a result of Proclamation No. 3." No valid reason has been advanced for a different treatment after
ratification as the majority opines i.e., that separation NOT FOR CAUSE is allowed before ratification but that,
thereafter,separationcanonlybeFORCAUSE.
AfundamentalprincipleofConstitutionalconstructionistoassuretherealizationofthepurposeoftheframersof
theorganiclawandofthepeoplewhoadoptedit.
That the reorganization commenced pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 was envisioned to continue even after the
ratificationofthe1987Constitution,atleasttransitorily,isevidentfromtheintentofitsauthorsdiscoverablefrom
theirdeliberationsheldon3October1986andevincingtheirawarenessthatsuchreorganizationhadnotasyet
beenfullyimplemented.Thus:
Mr.PADILLA.Mr.PresidingOfficer,onlines2to5istheclause'pursuanttotheprovisionsofArticleIIIof
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
ProclamationNo.3,issuedonMarch25,1986,andthereorganization.'Arethosewordsnecessary?Can
we not just say 'result of the reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution'? In other words,
mustwemakespecificreferencetoProclamationNo.3?
Mr. SUAREZ. Yes. I think the committee feels that is necessary, because in truth there has been a
reorganization by virtue of Proclamation No. 3. In other words, there are two stages of reorganization
coveredbythissection.
Mr.PADILIA.Iunderstandthereisareorganizationcommitteeheadedbyaminister?
Mr.SUAREZ.PhilippineCommissiononGovernmentReorganization.
Mr.PADILLA.Butwhetherthathasalreadybeenimplementedornot,Idonotbelieveinit.Therehasbeen
aplan,butIdonotthinkithasbeenimplemented.Ifwewanttoincludeanypreviousreorganizationafteror
beforetheratification,whydowenotjustsayreorganizationbeforeoraftertheratification'tosimplifythe
provision and eliminate twoandahalf sentences that may not be necessary? And as a result of the
reorganization, if the committee feels there has been reorganization before ratification and there be
reorganizationafter,wejustsay'beforeoraftertheratificationofthisConstitution.
Mr.SUAREZ.Somethinglikethisasaresultofthereorganizationeffectedbeforeoraftertheratificationof
theConstitutionontheunderstanding,withthestatementintotherecords,thatthiswouldbeapplicableto
thosereorganizedoutpursuanttotheFreedomConstitutionalso.
Mr. PADILLA. That is understood if there has been a reorganization before the ratification or a
reorganization after the ratification." (RECORDS of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 5, p. 416)
(Emphasisprovided)
ItshouldalsoberecalledthatthedeadlineforthereorganizationunderProclamationNo.3was"oneyearfrom
February25,1986"(ArticleIII,Section2),oruptoFebruary24,1987.ExecutiveOrderNo.17itselfprovidedthat
the review/assessment of personnel be completed "not later than February 24, 1987." But, confronted with the
reality of the ratification of the Constitution before that deadline without reorganization having been completed,
therewasneedforaprovisionallowingforitscontinuanceevenafterratificationanduntilcompleted.Itwasalso
to beat that deadline that EO 127 and similar issuances, providing for the reorganization of departments of
government, were all dated 30 January 1987 or prior to the plebiscite held on 2 February 1987. The intent to
continueandcompletethereorganizationsstartedisselfevidentinSECTION16.
InJosevs.Arroyo,etal.(G.R.No.78435,August11,1987),whichwasaPetitionforcertiorariandProhibitionto
enjoin the implementation of Executive Order No. 127, we recognized that the reorganization pursuant to
ProclamationNo.3asmandatedbySECTION16,wastocontinueevenafterratificationwhenwestated:
The contention of petitioner that EO No. 127 is violative of the provision of the 1987 Constitution
guaranteeing career civil service employees security of tenure overlooks the provision of Section 16, Art.
XVIII(TransitoryProvisions)whichexplicitlyauthorizestheremovalofcareercivilserviceemployeesnotfor
causebutasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch25,1986andthe
reorganizationfollowingtheratificationoftheConstitution.Byvirtueofsaidprovision,thereorganizationof
the Bureau of Customs under Executive Order No. 127 may continue even after the ratification of this
Constitution and career civil service employees may be separated from the service without cause as a
resultofsuchreorganization.(Emphasisours)
Withduerespecttothemajority,wedisagreewithitsconclusionthattheforegoingpronouncementismere"obiter
dictum."
Anobiterdictumordictumhasbeendefinedasaremarkoropinionuttered,bytheway.Itisastatementof
the court concerning a question which was not directly before it (In re Hess 23 A. 2d. 298, 301, 20 N.J.
Misc.12). Itislanguageunnecessarytoadecision,(a)rulingonanissuenotraised,or(an)opinionofa
l w p h 1 . t
judgewhichdoesnotembodytheresolutionordeterminationofthecourt,andismadewithoutargumentor
fullconsiderationofthepoint(Lawsonv.US,176F2d49,51,85U.S.App.D.C.167).Itisanexpressionof
opinionbythecourtorjudgeonacollateralquestionnotdirectlyinvolved,(CrescentRingCo.v.Travelers
IndemnityCo.132A.106,107,102N.J.Law85)ornotnecessaryforthedecisionDuBellv.UnionCentral
LifeIns.Co.,29,So.2d709,712211La.167).
In the case at bar, however, directly involved and squarely before the Court was the issue of whether EO 127
violatesSection2(3)ofArticleIXBofthe1987Constitutionagainstremovalofcivilserviceemployeesexceptfor
cause."Petitionerbattedfortheaffirmativeoftheproposition,whilerespondentscontendedthat"removalofcivil
serviceemployeeswithoutcauseisallowednotonlyundertheProvisionalConstitutionbutalsounderthe1987
ConstitutionifthesameismadepursuanttoareorganizationaftertheratificationoftheConstitution."
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
It may be that the Court dismissed that Petition for being premature, speculative and purely anticipatory"
inasmuchaspetitionerthereinhad"notreceivedanycommunicationterminatingorthreateningtoterminatehis
services." But that was only one consideration. The Court still proceeded to decide all the issues adversatively
contested by the parties, namely "1) that the expiration date of February 25, 1 987 fixed by Section 2 of
ProclamationNo.3onwhichsaidExecutiveorderisbasedhadalreadylapsed2)thattheExecutiveOrderhas
notbeenpublishedintheOfficialGazetteasrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandSection11oftheRevised
Administrative Code and 3) that its enforcement violates Section 2(3) of Article IX B of the 1987 Constitution
againstremovalofcivilserviceemployeesexceptforcause."
The ruling of the Court, therefore, on the Constitutional issues presented, particularly, the lapse of the period
mandated by Proclamation No. 3, and the validity of EO 127, cannot be said to be mere "obiter." They were
ultimateissuesdirectlybeforetheCourt,expresslydecidedinthecourseoftheconsiderationofthecase,sothat
anyresolutionthereonmustbeconsideredasauthoritativeprecedent,andnotameredictum(SeeValliv.US,94
F2d687certiorari granted 58 S. Ct. 760, 303 U.S. 82 L. Ed. 1092 See also Weedin v. Tayokichi Yamada 4 F.
(2d)455).Suchresolutionwouldnotloseitsvalueasaprecedentjustbecausethedispositionofthecasewas
alsomadeonsomeotherground.
.....And this rule applies as to all pertinent questions although only incidentally involved, which are
presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case, and lead up to the final
conclusion(NorthernPac.RyCo.v.Baker,D.C.Wash.,3F.Suppl.1SeealsoWisconsinPowerandLight
Co. v. City of Beloit 254 NW 119 Chase v. American Cartage Co. 186 N.W. 598 City of Detroit, et al. v.
PublicUtilitiesComm.286N.W.368).Accordingly,apointexpresslydecideddoesnotloseitsvalueasa
precedentbecausethedispositionofthecaseismadeonsomeotherground.(Wagnerv.ComProducts
Refining Co. D.C. N.J. 28 F 2d 617) Where a case presents two or more points, any one of which is
sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court actually decides all such points, the case is an
authoritative precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can be regarded as having
merelythestatusofadictum(SeeU.S.TitleInsuranceandTrustCo.,Cal.,44S.Ct.621,265U.S.472,68
L. Ed. 1110 Van Dyke v. Parker 83 F. (2d) 35) and one point should not be denied authority merely
becauseanotherpointwasmoredweltonandmorefullyarguedandconsidered.(RichmondScrewAnchor
Co.v.U.S.48S.Ct.194,275U.S.331,72L.Ed.303)"
ItistruethatinPalmaFernandezvs.delaPaz(G.R.No.78946,April15,1986,160SCRA751),wehadstated:
The argument that, on the basis of this provision (Section 26 of Executive Order No. 119, or the
'ReorganizationActoftheMinistryofHealth'),petitioner'stermofofficeendedon30January1987andthat
shecontinuedintheperformanceofherdutiesmerelyinaholdovercapacityandcouldbetransferredto
another position without violating any of her legal rights, is untenable. The occupancy of a position in a
(undertheProvisionalConstitution),butadvancedto2February1987whenthe1987Constitutionbecame
effective(DeLeon,etal.,vs.Hon.Esguerra,etal.,G.R.No.78059,31August1987,153SCRA602).After
theddatetheprovisionsofthelatteronsecurityoftenuregovern.
The factual situation in the two cases, however, radically differ. In the cited case, Dra. PalmaFernandez, the
petitioner,hadalreadybeenextendedapermanentappointmentasAssistantDirectorforProfessionalServicesof
theEastAvenueMedicalCenterbutwasstillbeingtransferredbytheMedicalCenterChieftotheResearchOffice
against her consent. Separation from the service as a result of reorganization was not involved. The question
then arose as to whether the latter official had the authority to transfer or whether the power to appoint and
removesubordinateofficersandemployeeswaslodgedintheSecretaryofHealth.Relatedtothatissuewasthe
vitaloneofwhetherornothertransfer,effectedon29May1987,wastantamounttoaremovalwithoutcause.
Significant,too,isthefactthatthetransferwasbasicallymade"intheinterestoftheservice"pursuanttoSection
24(c)ofPDNo.807,ortheCivilServiceDecree,andnotbecauseshewasbeingreorganizedoutbyvirtueofEO
119orthe"ReorganizationActoftheMinistryofHealth,"althoughthesaidActwasinvokedafterthefact.Andso
itwasthatSECTION16wasnevermentioned,muchlessinvokedinthePalmaFernandezcase.
Finally, on this point, it is inaccurate for the majority to state that there were no reorganization orders after
ratification.Therewere,namely,EO181(ReorganizationActoftheCivilServiceCommission),June1,1987EO
193(ReorganizationActoftheOfficeofEnergyAffairs),June10,1987EO230(ReorganizationActofNEDA),
July 22, 1987 EO 262 (Reorganization Act of the Department of Local Government), July 25, 1987 EO 297
(ReorganizationActoftheOfficeofthePressSecretary),July25,1987.
TheElementofGoodFaith
The majority concedes that reorganization can be undertaken provided it be in good faith but concludes that
CommissionerMisonwasnotingoodfaith.
Theaforesaidconclusioniscontradictedbytherecords.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Executive Order No. 127, dated 30 January 1987, specifically authorized the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs"structurallyandfunctionally"andprovidedfortheabolitionofallunitsandpositionsthereofnotincluded
inthestructuralorganizationSelection55).
As stated heretofore, it was the former Commissioner of Customs, Alexander A. Padilla who, on 24 May 1987,
transmittedtotheDepartmentofFinanceforapprovaltheproposed"positionstructureandstaffingpattern"ofthe
Bureau of Customs. This was approved by the Department of Finance. Thereafter, it was transmitted to and
approved by the Department of Budget and Management on 7 September 1987 for implementation. Under the
oldstaffingpattern,therewere7,302positionswhileunderthenewstaffingpattern,thereare6,530positions.

ExecutiveOrders"provided:
By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive orders for each agency on reorganization
shallbe:
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartmentoragency,or
c.informedoftheirtermination.(emphasissupplied)
On 25 November 1987 Commissioner Mison asked for and was granted by the President an extension up to
February1988withinwhichtocompletelyundertakethereorganizationoftheBureauofCustoms.
On 6 January 1988, he issued Bureau of Customs Memorandum "Re Guidelines on the Implementation of
Reorganization Executive Orders" reiterating the above quoted portion of the Malacanang Memorandum of 2
October 1987. Pursuant thereto, on 28 January 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed uniform letters of
termination to the employees listed on pages 15, 16 and 17 of the majority opinion, effective on 28 February
1988,withintheextendedperiodgranted.
The records further show that upon Commissioner Mison's official inquiry, Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A.
Ordoez,renderedthefollowingOpinion:
...Itisbelievedthatcustomsemployeeswhoarereorganizedoutinthecourseoftheimplementationof
E.O.No.127(reorganizingtheDepartmentofFinance)neednotbeinformedofthenatureandcauseof
theirseparationfromtheservice.Itisenoughthattheybe'informedoftheirtermination'pursuanttosection
1(c)oftheMemorandumdatedOctober2,1987ofPresidentAquino,whichreads:
1. By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive orders for each agency on
xxxxxxxxx
c)Informedoftheirterminations.
Theconstitutionalmandatethat'noofficeroremployeeofthecivilserviceshallberenewedorsuspended
exceptforcauseasprovidedbylaw'(Sec.2(4)(sic),ArticleIXBofthe1987Constitution)doesnotapplyto
employees who are separated from office as a result of the reorganization of that Bureau as directed in
ExecutiveOrderNo.127.
xxxxxxxxx
Regardingyour(third)query,theissueastotheconstitutionalityofExecutiveOrderNo.127issetatrest,
aftertheSupremeCourtresolvedtodismissthepetitionforcertiorariquestioningitsenforceability,forlack
ofmerit(seeJosevs.Arroyo,etal.,supra).(OpinionNo.41,s.1988,March3,1988)(Emphasissupplied)
The former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Celerina G. Gotladera likewise periodically consulted by
Commissioner Mison, also expressed the opinion that "it is not a prerequisite prior to the separation of an
employee pursuant to reorganization that he be administratively charged." (Annex 16, p. 411, Rollo, G.R. No.
85310)
Moreover, the records show that the final selection and placement of personnel was done by a Placement
Committee, one of whose members is the Head of the Civil Service Commission Field Office, namely, Mrs.
Purificacion Cuerdo The appointment of employees made by Commissioner Mison was based on the list
approvedbysaidPlacementCommittee.
ButthemajorityfurtherfaultsMisonfordefyingthePresident'sdirectivetohaltfurtherlayoffsasaconsequence
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
ofreorganization,citingOPMemoof14October1987,reading:
nofurtherlayoffsthisyearofpersonnelasaresultofthegovernmentreorganization.(p.45,Decision)
Theforegoing,however,mustbedeemedsupersededbylaterdevelopments,namely,thegranttoCommissioner
MisonbythePresidenton22December1987ofagraceperioduntiltheendofFebruary1988withinwhichto
completely undertake the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs, which was, in fact, accomplished by 28
February1988.
Tofurthershowlackofgoodfaith,themajoritystatesthatCommissionerMisonfailedtoobservetheprocedure
laid down by EO 17, supra, directing inter alia that a notice of separation be issued to an employee to be
terminatedindicatingthereinthereason/sorground/sforsuchseparation.Thatrequirement,however,doesnot
appearinSection59ofEO127,whichprovidesonthecontrary"thatthoseincumbentswhosepositionsarenot
included in the new position structure and staffing pattern of the Ministry or who are not reappointed shall be
deemedseparatedfromtheservice."TherightgrantedbyEO17toanemployeetobeinformedofthegroundfor
hisseparationmustbedeemedtohavebeenrevokedbytherepealingclauseofEO127(Section67)providing
that"alllaws,ordinancesorpartsthereof,whichareinconsistentwiththisExecutiveOrder,areherebyrepealed
andmodifiedaccordingly."
Moreover,Section11ofEO17explicitlyexceptsfromitscoverageareorganizationpursuanttoEO5.Thus
The Executive Order shallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them, presidential
appointees, casual and contractual employees, or officials and employees removed pursuant to
desciplinary proceedings under the Civil Service law and rules, and to those laid off as a result of
reorganizationundertakenpursuanttoExecutiveOrderNo.5.(Emphasisours)
ThatEO127wasissuedpursuanttoorinimplementationofEO5,isshownbyitsintroductoryportionreading:
RecallingthatthereorganizationofthegovernmentismandatedexpresslybyArticleII,Section1(a)and
HavinginmindthatpursuanttoExecutiveorderNo.5(1986),itisdirectedthatthenecessaryandproper
changes in the organizational and functional structures of the government, its agencies and
service(Italicssupplied)
ConstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.6656
ThemajorityalsoreliesonRepublicActNo.6656entitledan"ActtoProtecttheSecurityofTenureofCivilService
OfficersandEmployeesintheImplementationofGovernmentReorganization,"particularlySection2thereof,to
testthegoodfaithofCommissionerMison.
We are of the view, however, that in providing for retroactivity in its Section 13, RA 6656 clashes frontally with
SECTION16.
1) SECTION 16 clearly recognizes that career service employees separated from the service by reason of the
"complete reorganization of the government" pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 may be separated NOT FOR
CAUSE.Andyet,RA6656requirestheexactoppositeseparationFORCAUSE.Itwouldnotberemisstoquote
theprovisionagain:
due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exist when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a
law.Theexistenceofanyorsomeofthefollowingcircumstancesmaybeconsideredasevidenceofbad
separationprovidedinSection3hereof.(RepublicActNo.6156)
Thestandardslaiddownarethe"traditional"criteriaforremovalofemployeesfromthecareerservice,e.g.valid
cause, due notice and hearing, abolition of, or redundancy of offices. Proclamation No. 3, on the other hand,
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
effectuates the "progressive" type of reorganization dictated by the exigencies of the historical and political
upheavalatthetime.The"traditional"typeislimitedinscope.Itisconcernedwiththeindividualapproachwhere
theparticularemployeeinvolvedischargedadministrativelyandwheretherequisitesofnoticeandhearinghave
to be observed. The "progressive" kind of reorganization, on the other hand, is the collective way. It is wider in
scope,andisthereorganizationcontemplatedunderSECTION16.
2) By providing for reinstatement in its Section 9, RA 6656 adds a benefit not included in SECTION 16. The
benefits granted by the latter provision to employees separated NOT FOR CAUSE but as a consequence of
reorganization are "separation pay, retirement, and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general
application in force at the time of their separation." The benefit of reinstatement is not included. RA 6656,
however,allowsreinstatement.ThatitcannotdobecauseunderSECTION16,itisnotoneofthelaws"inforceat
thetimeoftheirseparation."
TheConstitutionistheparamountlawtowhichalllawsmustconform.ItisfromtheConstitutionthatallstatutes
mustderivetheirbearings.ThelegislativeauthorityoftheStatemustyieldtotheexpressionofthesovereignwill.
No statutory enactment can disregard the Charter from which it draws its own existence (Phil. Long Distance
TelephoneCo.v.CollectorofInternalRevenue,90Phil.674[1952]).But,thatisexactlywhatRA6656doesin
providing for retroactivity it disregards and contravenes a Constitutional imperative. To save it, it should be
applied and construed prospectively and not retroactively notwithstanding its explicit provision. Then, and only
then,woulditmakegoodlaw.
EffectsofReorganization
Tobesure,thereorganizationcouldeffectthetenureofmembersofthecareerserviceasdefinedinSection5,
Article IV of Presidential Decree No. 807, and may even result in the separation from the office of some
meritoriousemployees.Buteventhen,thegreatergoodofthegreatestnumberandtherightofthecitizenrytoa
goodgovernment,andastheythemselveshavemandatedthroughthevehicleofProclamationNo.3,providethe
justificationforthesaidinjurytotheindividual.Intermsofvalues,theinterestofanemployeetosecurityoftenure
mustyieldtotheinterestoftheentirepopulaceandtoanefficientandhonestgovernment.
Butareorganizedemployeeisnotwithoutrights.Hisrightliesinhispastservices,theentitlementtowhichmust
beprovidedforbylaw.EO127providesforthesameinitsSection59,andsodoesSECTION16whenthelatter
specifiedthatcareercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcause:
shallbeentitledtoappropriateseparationpayandtoretirementandotherbenefitsaccruingtothemunder
thelawsofgeneralapplicationinforceatthetimeoftheirseparation.Inlieuthereof,attheoptionofthe
employees, they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies, including governmentowned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the
existingpolicy,hasbeenaccepted.
This is a reward for the employee's past service to the Government. But this is all There is no vested property
righttobereemployedinareorganizedoffice.
The right to an office or to employment with government or any of its agencies is not a vested property
right,andremovaltherefromwillnotsupportthequestionofdueprocess"Yantsinv.Aberdeen,54Wash
2d 787, 345 P 2d 178). A civil service employee does not have a constitutionally protected right to his
position,whichpositionisinthenatureofapublicoffice,politicalincharacterandheldbywayofgrantor
privilegeextendedbygovernmentgenerallyhehasbeenheldtohavenopropertyrightorvestedinterest
towhichdueprocessguarantiesextend(SeeTaylorv.Beckham178U.S.548,44LEd.1187Angillyv.US
CA2NY199F2d642Peopleex.rel.Bakerv.Wilson,39IIIApp2d443,189NE2d1Kellihellerv.NY
StateCivilServiceCom21Misc2d1034,194NYS2d89).
Toensure,however,thatnomeritoriousemployeehasbeenseparatedfromtheservice,therewouldbenoharm,
infact,itcoulddoalotofgood,iftheCommissionerofCustomsreviewstheevaluationandplacementshehasso
far made and sees to it that those terminated are included in a consolidated list to be given preference by
departmentswhoarerecruiting(Section2[a],BOCMemorandum,January6,1988). l w p h 1 . t
Conclusion
Premises considered, and subject to the observation hereinabove made, it is our considered view that the
separationfromtheservice"NOTFORCAUSEbutasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.
3datedMarch25,1986"oftheaffectedofficersandemployeesoftheBureauofCustomsshouldbeUPHELD,
andtheResolutionsoftheCivilServiceCommission,dated30June1988,20September1988,and16November
1988shouldbeSETASIDEforhavingbeenissuedingraveabuseofdiscretion.
Republic Act No. 6656, in so far as it provides for retroactivity, should be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
beingrepugnanttotheletterandspiritofSection16,ArticleXVIIIofthe1987Constitution.
Fernan,C.J.,Narvasa,Feliciano,Regalado,JJ.,concur.
SeparateOpinions
CRUZ,J.,concurring:
I concur with the majority view so ably presented by Mr. Justice Abraham F. Sarmiento. While additional
commentsmayseemsuperfluousinviewoftheexhaustivenessofhisponencia,Ineverthelessofferthefollowing
briefobservationsforwhatevertheymaybeworth.
EmphasizingArticleXVII,Section16oftheConstitution,thedissentingopinionconsiderstheongoinggovernment
reorganizationvalidbecauseitismerelyacontinuationofthereorganizationbegunduringthetransitionperiod.
Thereasonforthisconclusionisthephrase"andthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationoftheConstitution,"
thatistosay,afterFebruary2,1987,appearinginthesaidprovision.Theconsequence(andIhopeIhavenot
misread it) is that the present reorganization may still be undertaken with the same "absoluteness" that was
allowedtherevolutionaryreorganizationalthoughtheFreedomConstitutionisnolongerinforce.
Reorganizationofthegovernmentmayberequiredbythelegislatureevenindependentlyofspecificconstitutional
authorization, as in the case, for example, of R.A. No. 51 and B.P. No. 129. Being revolutionary in nature, the
reorganizationdecreedbyArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitutionwasunlimitedastoitsmethodexceptonlyasit
was later restricted by President Aquino herself through various issuances, particularly E.O. No. 17. But this
reorganization,forallitspermittedsummariness,wasnotindefinite.UnderSection3ofthesaidArticleIII,itwas
allowed only up to February 29,1987 (which we advanced to February 2, 1987, when the new Constitution
becameeffective).
The clear implication is that any government reorganization that may be undertaken thereafter must be
authorized by the legislature only and may not be allowed the special liberties and protection enjoyed by the
revolutionaryreorganization.Otherwise,therewouldhavebeennonecessityatallforthetimelimitationexpressly
prescribedbytheFreedomConstitution.
IcannotaccepttheviewthatSection16isanauthorizationfortheopenendedreorganizationofthegovernment
"followingtheratificationoftheConstitution."Ireadtheprovisionasmerelyconferringbenefitsdeservedlyor
notonpersonsseparatedfromthegovernmentasaresultofthereorganizationofthegovernment,whether
undertakenduringthetransitionperiodorasaresultofalawpassedthereafter.Whatthegrantsisprivilegesto
the retirees, not power to the provision government. It is axiomatic that grants of power are not lightly inferred,
especiallyiftheseimpingeonindividualrights,andIdonotseewhyweshoulddepartfromthisrule.
To hold that the present reorganization is a continuation of the one begun during the transition period is to
recognize the theory of the public respondent that all officers and employees not separated earlier remain in a
holdovercapacityonlyandsomaybereplacedatanytimeevenwithoutcause.Thatisadangerousproposition
that threatens the security and stability of every civil servant in the executive department. What is worse is that
thissituationmaycontinueindefinitelyastheclaimed"progressive"reorganizationhasnolimitationastotime.
Removalimportstheforcibleseparationoftheincumbentbeforetheexpirationofhistermandcanbedoneonly
for cause as provided by law. Contrary to common belief, a reorganization does not result in removal but in a
differentmodeofterminatingofficialrelationsknownasabolitionoftheoffice(andthesecurityoftenureattached
thereto.)Theerstwhileholderoftheabolishedofficecannotclaimhehasbeenremovedwithoutcauseinviolation
ofhisconstitutionalsecurityoftenure.Thereasonisthattherightitselfhasdisappearedwiththeabolishedoffice
asanaccessoryfollowingtheprincipal.(Ocampov.Sec.ofJustice,51O.G.147DelaLlanav.Alba,112SCRA
294Manalangv.Quitoriano,94Phil.903.)
Thisnotwithstanding,thepowertoreorganizeisnotunlimited.Itisessentialthatitbebasedonavalidpurpose,
such as the promotion of efficiency and economy in the government through a pruning of offices or the
streamliningoftheirfunctions.(Cervantesv.AuditorGeneral,91Phil.359.)Normally,areorganizationcannotbe
validlyundertakenasameansofpurgingtheundesirablesforthiswouldbearemovalindisguiseundertakenen
massetocircumventtheconstitutionalrequirementoflegalcause.(Eradicationofgraftandcorruptionwasoneof
the expressed purposes of the revolutionary organization, but this was authorized by the Freedom Constitution
itself.) In short, a reorganization, to be valid, must be done in good faith. (Urgelio v. Osmena, 9 SCRA 317
Cunetav.CourtofAppeals,1SCRA663Carinov.ACCFA,18SCRA183.)
A mere recitation no matter how lengthy of the directives, guidelines, memoranda, etc. issued by the
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
government and the action purportedly taken thereunder does not by itself prove good faith. We know only too
well that these instructions, for all their noble and sterile purposes, are rarely followed in their actual
implementation.Therealityinthiscase,asthemajorityopinionhaspointedoutandasclearlyestablishedinthe
hearing we held, is that the supposed reorganization was undertaken with an eye not to achieving the avowed
objectivesbuttoaccommodatingnewappointeesattheexpenseofthedislodgedpetitioners.Thatwasalsothe
findingoftheCivilServiceCommission,towhichwemustaccordabecomingrespectastheconstitutionaloffice
chargedwiththeprotectionofthecivilservicefromtheevilsofthespoilssystem.
Thepresentadministrationdeservesfullsupportinitsdesiretoimprovethecivilservice,butthisobjectivemust
bepursuedinamannerconsistentwiththeConstitution.Thispraiseworthypurposecannotbeaccomplishedby
anindiscriminatereorganizationthatwillsweepinitswaketheinnocentalongwiththeredundantandinept,for
thebenefitofthecurrentfavorites.
MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,dissenting:
ThehistoricalunderpinningsofGovernmenteffortsatreorganizationharkbacktothepeoplepowerphenomenon
of2224February1986,andProclamationNo.1ofPresidentCorazonC.Aquino,issuedon25February1986,
stating in no uncertain terms that "the people expect a reorganization of government." In its wake followed
Executive Order No. 5, issued on 12 March 1986, "Creating a Presidential Commission on Government
Reorganization,"withthefollowingrelevantprovisions:
WHEREAS,thereisneedtoeffectthenecessaryandproperchangesintheorganizationalandfunctional
structuresofthenationalandlocalgovernments,itsagenciesandinstrumentalities,includinggovernment
owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, in order to promote economy, efficiency and
effectivenessinthedeliveryofpublicservices
xxxxxxxxx
Section2.ThefunctionaljurisdictionofthePCGRshallencompass,asnecessary,thereorganizationofthe
national and local governments, its agencies and instrumentalities including governmentowned or
controlledcorporationsandtheirsubsidiaries.
SucceedingitwasProclamationNo.3,dated25March1986,alsoknownastheFreedomConstitution,declaring,
inpart,initsPreambleasfollows:
WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action demands the
completereorganizationofthegovernment,...(Emphasissupplied)
andpertinentlyproviding:
ARTICLEII
SectionI
xxxxxxxxx
(a)Completely reorganize the government and eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all
iniquitousvestigesofthepreviousregime"(Emphasissupplied)
xxxxxxxxx
ARTICLEIIIGOVERNMENTREORGANIZATION
Section2.Allelectiveandappointiveofficialsandemployeesunderthe1973Constitutionshallcontinuein
officeuntilotherwiseprovidedbyproclamationorexecutiveorderoruponthedesignationorappointment
andqualificationoftheirsuccessors,ifsuchismadewithinaperiodofoneyearfromFebruary25,1986.
Section 3. Any public office or employee separated from the service as a result of the reorganization
otherbenefitsaccruingthereunder.(Emphasisours)
On28May1986,ExecutiveOrderNo.17wasissued"PrescribingRulesandRegulationsfortheImplementation
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
ofSection2,ArticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution'providing,interalia,asfollows:
Section1.InthecourseofimplementingArticleIII,Section2oftheFreedomConstitution,theHeadofeach
Ministry shall see to it that the separation or replacement of officers and employees is made only for
justifiable reasons, to prevent indiscriminate dismissal, of personnel in the career civil service whose
qualificationsandperformancemeetthestandardsofpublicserviceoftheNewGovernment.
xxxxxxxxx
TheMinistryconcernedshalladoptitsownrulesandproceduresforthereviewandassessmentofitsown
personnel, including the identification of sensitive positions which require more rigid assessment of the
incumbents, and shall complete such review/assessment as expeditiously as possible but not later than
February24,1987topreventunduedemoralizationinthepublicservice.
Section2.TheMinistryHeadconcerned,onthebasisofsuchreviewandassessmentshalldeterminewho
shall be separated from the service. Thereafter, he shall issue to the official or employee concerned a
noticeofseparationwhichshallindicatethereinthereason/sorground/sforsuchseparationandthefact
that the separated official or employee has the right to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to this
Order.Separationfromtheserviceshallbeeffectiveuponreceiptofsuchnotice,eitherpersonallybythe
officialoremployeeconcernedoronhisbehalfbyapersonofsufficientdiscretion.
Section3.Thefollowingshallbethegroundsforseparation/replacementofpersonnel:
1.ExistenceofacaseforsummarydismissalpursuanttoSection40oftheCivilServiceLaw
2. Existence of a probable cause for violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practice Act as
determinedbytheMinistryHeadconcerned
3.Grossincompetenceorinefficiencyinthedischargeoffunctions
4.MisuseofPublicofficeforpartisanpoliticalpurposes
5.Anyotheranalogousgroundshowingthattheincumbentisunfittoremainintheserviceor
hisseparation/replacementisintheinterestoftheservice.
Section11.ThisExecutiveOrdershallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them,

presidentialappointees,casualandcontractualemployees,orofficialsandemployeesremovedpursuantto
disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Service Law and rules, and to those laid off as a result of the
reorganizationundertakenpursuanttoExecutiveOrderNo.5.(Emphasissupplied)
On6August1986,ExecutiveOrderNo.39wasissuedbythePresident"EnlargingthePowersandFunctionsof
theCommissionerofCustoms",asfollows:
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 1. In addition to the powers and functions of the Commissioner of Customs, he is hereby
authorized,subjecttotheCivilServiceLawanditsimplementingrulesandregulations:
a)ToappointallBureaupersonnel,exceptthoseappointedbythePresident
b)Todiscipline,suspend,dismissorotherwisepenalizeerringBureauofficersandemployees
c)Toactonallmatterspertainingtopromotion,transfer,detail,reassignment,reinstatement,
reemploymentandotherpersonnelaction,involvingofficersandemployeesoftheBureauof
Customs.
xxxxxxxxx
On30January1987,ExecutiveOrderNo.127wasissued"ReorganizingtheMinistryofFinance."SimilarOrders,
approximately thirteen (13) in all, 1 were issued in respect of the other executive departments. The relevant
provisionsrelativetotheBureauofCustomsread:
RECALLINGthatthereorganizationofthegovernmentismandatedexpresslyinArticleII,Sectionl(a)and
HAVING IN MIND that pursuant to Executive Order No. 5 (1986), it is directed that the necessary and
proper changes in the organizational and functional structures of the government, its agencies and
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
services
BELIEVING that it is necessary to reorganize the Ministry of Finance to make it more capable and
responsive,organizationallyandfunctionally,initsprimarymandateofjudiciouslygeneratingandefficiently
managingthefinancialresourcesoftheGovernment,itssubdivisionsandinstrumentalitiesinordertoattain
thesocioeconomicobjectivesofthenationaldevelopmentprograms.
xxxxxxxxx
SEC. 2. Reorganization. The Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as Ministry, is hereby

reorganized,structurallyandfunctionally,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisExecutiveOrder.
SEC.33.BureauofCustoms.
...ExecutiveOrderNo.39dated6August1986whichgrantsautonomytotheCommissionerofCustomsin
mattersofappointmentanddisciplineofCustomspersonnelshallremainineffect.
SEC. 55. Abolition of Units Integral to Ministry. All units not included in the structural organization as
hereinprovidedandallpositionsthereofareherebydeemedabolished....Theirpersonnelshallbeentitled
tothebenefitsprovidedinthesecondparagraphofSection59hereof.
SEC.59.NewStructureandPattern.UponapprovalofthisExecutiveOrder,theofficersandemployees
oftheMinistryshall,inaholdovercapacity,continuetoperformtheirrespectivedutiesandresponsibilities
and receive the corresponding salaries and benefits unless in the meantime they are separated from
governmentservicepursuanttoexecutiveOrderNo.17(1986)orarticleIIIoftheFreedomConstitution.
The new position structure and staffing pattern of the ministry shall be approved and prescribed by the
benefitstowhichtheymaybeentitledundertheexistinglaws,rulesandregulations.Otherwise,theyshall
bepaidtheequivalentofonemonthbasicsalaryforeveryyearofserviceortheequivalentnearestfraction
thereoffavorabletothemonthebasisofhighestsalaryreceived,butinnocaseshallsuchpaymentexceed
Nocourtoradministrativebodyshallissueanywritorpreliminaryjunctionorrestrainingordertoenjointhe
separation/replacementofanyofficeroremployeeaffectedunderthisExecutiveOrder.
Section 67 All laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and other issuances or parts thereof, which are
inconsistentwiththisExecutiveOrder,areherebyrepealedormodifiedaccordingly.
On2February1987,thepresentConstitutiontookeffect(DeLeon,etal.,vs.Esguerra,G.R.No.78059,August
31,1987153SCRA602).ReorganizationintheGovernmentservicepursuanttoProclamationNo.3,supra,was
providedforinitsSection16,ArticleXVIIIentitledTransitoryProvisions,reading:
Section16.Careercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcausebutasaresultofthe
ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other
lieuthereof,attheoptionoftheemployees,theymaybeconsideredforemploymentintheGovernmentor
in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government owned or controlled
corporationsandtheirsubsidiaries.Msprovisionalsoappliestocareerofficerswhoseresignation,tendered
inlinewiththeexistingpolicy,hasbeenaccepted.
On 24 May 1987 the then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander A. Padilla, transmitted to the Department of
Finance for approval the proposed "position structure and staffing pattern" of the Bureau of Customs. Said
Department gave its imprimatur. Thereafter, the staffing pattern was transmitted to and approved by the
DepartmentofBudgetandManagementon7September1987forimplementation.Undertheoldstaffingpattern,
therewere7,302positionswhileunderthenewstaffingpattern,thereare6,530positionsCSCResolutioninCSC
CaseNo.1,dated20September1988,pp.34).
On22September1987,SalvadorM.MisonassumedofficeasCommissionerofCustoms.

ExecutiveOrders"wasissuedreading,insofarasrevelanttothesecases,asfollows:
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
It is my concern that ongoing process of government reorganization be conducted in a manner that is

expeditious,aswellassensitivetothedislocatingconsequencesarisingfromspecificpersonneldecisions.
The entire process of reorganization, and in particular the process of separation from service, must be
carriedoutinthemosthumanemannerpossible.
Forthispurpose,thefollowingguidelinesshallbestrictlyfollowed:
1.By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive Orders for each agency on
a.informedoftheirreappointmentor
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartment/agencyor
2.Intheeventofanofferforalowerposition,therewillbenoreductioninthesalary.
xxxxxxxxx
4. Each department/agency shall constitute a Reorganization Appeals Board at the central

office,onorbeforeOctober21,1987,torevieworreconsiderappealsorcomplaintsrelativeto
reorganization. All cases submitted to the Boards shall be resolved subject to the following
guidelines:
a.publicationorpostingoftheappealprocedurepromulgatedbytheDepartmentSecretary
b.adherencetodueprocess
c.dispositionwithin30daysfromsubmissionofthecase
dwrittennotificationoftheactiontakenandthegroundsthereof.
ActionbytheAppealsReviewBoarddoesnotprecludeappealtotheCivilServiceCommission.
5.Placementinthenewstaffingpatternofincumbentpersonnelshallbecompletedpriortothe
hiringofnewpersonnel,ifany.
On 25 November 1987 Commissioner Mison wrote the President requesting a grace period until the end of
February 1988 within which to completely undertake the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs pursuant to
Executive Order No. 127 dated 30 January 1987. Said request was granted in a letterreply by Executive
SecretaryCatalinoMacaraig,Jr.,dated22December1987.
On6January1988,withintheextendedperiodrequested,BureauofCustomsMemorandum"Re:Guidelineson
the Implementation of Reorganization Executive Orders" was issued in the same tenor as the Malacanang
Memorandumof2October1987,providinginteralia:
To effectively implement the reorganization at the Bureau of Customs, particularly in the selection and
placement of personnel, and insure that the best qualified and most competent personnel in the career
serviceareretained,thefollowingguidelinesareherebyprescribedfortheguidanceofallconcerned
1. By February 28, 1988 all employees covered by Executive Order No. 127 and the grace period
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartmentoragencyor
2.Intheeventoftermination,theemployeeshall:
a.beincludedinaconsolidatedlistcompiledbytheCivilServiceCommission.Alldepartments
whoarerecruitingshallgivepreferencetotheemployeesinthelistand
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
b.continuetoreceivesalaryandbenefitsuntilFebruary28,1988,and
c.beguaranteedthereleaseofseparationbenefitswithin45daysfromterminationandinno
caselaterthanJune15,1988.
Itistobenotedthatparagraph1aboveanditssubsectionsreproducedverbatimtheMalacanangGuidelinesof
2October1987inthattheemployeesconcernedweremerelytobeinformedoftheirtermination.
On28January1988CommissionerMisonaddressedidenticallettersofterminationtoBureauofCustomsofficers
andemployeeseffectiveon28February1988.
Asof18August1988,CommissionerMisonappointedfivehundredtwentytwo(522)officialsandemployeesof
theBureauofCustoms(CSCResolutioninCSCCaseNo.1,dated20September1988,p.6).Infact,inaletter
dated27January1988,CommissionerMisonrecommendedJoseM.BaldeforappointmenttoPresidentAquino
asoneofthree(3)DeputyCommissionersunderExecutiveOrderNo.127.
In the interim, during the pendency of these Petitions, Republic Act No. 6656, entitled "An Act to Protect the
SecurityofTenureofCivilServiceOfficersandEmployeesintheImplementationofGovernmentReorganization"
waspassedbyCongresson9June1988.ThePresidentsigneditintolawon10June1988andthestatutetook
effecton29June1988.
On20June1988Motionswerefiled,inthesecasespendingbeforethisCourt,invokingtheprovisionsofRepublic
ActNo.6656.Therelevantprovisionsthereofread:
SECTION 1. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect the security of tenure of civil service
officersandemployeesinthereorganizationofthevariousagenciesoftheNationalgovernment....
SECTION2.No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and
afterduenoticeandhearing.Avalidcauseforremovalexistswhen,pursuanttoabonafidereorganization,
a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate
reappointmentbyanaggrievedparty:
(a)Wherethereisasignificantincreaseinthenumberofpositionsinthenewstaffingpatternofthe
departmentoragencyconcerned
(b)Whereanofficeisabolishedandanotherperformingsubstantiallythesamefunctionsiscreated
(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performanceandmerit
(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the
reclassifiedofficesperformsubstantiallythesamefunctionsastheoriginaloffices
(e)WheretheremovalviolatestheorderofseparationprovidedinSection3hereof.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been
separatedinviolationoftheprovisionsofthisAct,shallbeorderedreinstatedorreappointedasthecase
may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also
separated for cause, all officers and employees, including casuals and temporary employees, who have
beenseparatedpursuanttoreorganizationshall,ifentitledthereto,bepaidtheappropriateseparationpay
andretirementandotherbenefitsunderexistinglawswithinninety(90)daysfromthedateoftheeffectivity
of their separation or from the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be:
concerned.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION 11. The executive branch of the government shall implement reorganization schemes within a
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
specifiedperiodoftimeauthorizedbylaw.
In the case of the 1987 reorganization of the executive branch, all departments and agencies which are
authorized by executive orders promulgated by the President to reorganize shall have ninety (90) days
fromtheapprovalofthisActwithinwhichtoimplementtheirrespectivereorganizationplansinaccordance
withtheprovisionsofthisAct.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION13.Alllaws,rulesandregulationsorpartsthereof,inconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthisActare
herebyrepealedormodifiedaccordingly.TherightsandbenefitsunderthisActshallberetroactive as of
June30,1987.
Giventheforegoingstatutorybackdrop,theissuescannowbeaddressed.
ScopeofSection16,Art.XVIII,1987Constitution
CrucialtothepresentcontroversyistheconstructiontobegiventotheabovementionedConstitutionalprovision
(SECTION16,forbrevity),whichspeaksof.
Careercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcause
butasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch25,1986
andthereorganizationfollowingtheratificationofthisConstitution...(paragraphingsupplied).
Toourminds,SECTION16clearlyrecognizes(1)thereorganizationauthorizedbyProclamationNo.3(2)
that such separation is NOT FOR CAUSE but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to said
Proclamationand(3)thatthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3maybecontinuedevenafter
theratificationofthe1987Constitutionduringthetransitionperiod.
SeparationNOTFORCAUSE
The canon for the removal or suspension of a civil service officer or employee is that it must be FOR CAUSE.
That means a guarantee of both procedural and substantive due process. Basically, procedural due process
would require that suspension or dismissal come only after notice and hearing. Substantive due process would
requirethatsuspensionordismissalbe'forcause'."BernasTheConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines:A
Commentary,Vol.II,FirstEdition,1988,p.334)
TheguaranteeofremovalFORCAUSEisenshrinedinArticleIXB,Section2(3)ofthe1987Constitution,which
states that 'No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except FOR CAUSE
providedbylaw."
TherecanbenoquestionthenastothemeaningofthephraseFORCAUSE.Itsimplymeanstheobservanceof
both procedural and substantive due process in cases of removal of officers or employees of the civil service.
When SECTION 16 speaks, therefore, of separation from the service NOT FOR CAUSE, it can only mean the
diametrical opposite. The constitutional intent to exempt the separation of civil service employees pursuant to
Proclamation No. 3 from the operation of Article IXB, Section 2(3), becomes readily apparent. A distinction is
explicitly made between removal FOR CAUSE, which as aforestated, requires due process, and dismissal NOT
FORCAUSE,whichimpliesthatthelatterisnotboundbythe"fetters'ofdueprocess.
It is obviously for that reason that Section 16 grants separation pay and retirement benefits to those separated
NOT FOR CAUSE but as a result of the reorganization precisely to soften the impact of the nonobservance of
due process. "What is envisioned in Section 16 is not a remedy for arbitrary removal of civil servants enjoying
securityoftenurebutsomeformofreliefformembersofthecareercivilservicewhomayhavebeenormaybe
legally but involuntarily 'reorganized out' of the service or may have voluntarily resigned pursuant to the
reorganizationpolicy"(ibid.,p.615).
ReorganizationPursuanttoProclamationNo.3toContinueTransitorilyEvenAfterRatification
Byitsverycontext,SECTION16envisagesthecontinuanceofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3
even after ratification of the Constitution and during the transition period. The two [2] stages contemplated,
namely,(1)thestagebeforeand(2)afterratification,refertothesamenatureofseparation"NOTFORCAUSE
but as a result of Proclamation No. 3." No valid reason has been advanced for a different treatment after
ratification as the majority opines i.e., that separation NOT FOR CAUSE is allowed before ratification but that,
thereafter,separationcanonlybeFORCAUSE.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
AfundamentalprincipleofConstitutionalconstructionistoassuretherealizationofthepurposeoftheframersof
theorganiclawandofthepeoplewhoadoptedit.
That the reorganization commenced pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 was envisioned to continue even after the
ratificationofthe1987Constitution,atleasttransitorily,isevidentfromtheintentofitsauthorsdiscoverablefrom
theirdeliberationsheldon3October1986andevincingtheirawarenessthatsuchreorganizationhadnotasyet
beenfullyimplemented.Thus:
Mr.PADILLA.Mr.PresidingOfficer,onlines2to5istheclause'pursuanttotheprovisionsofArticleIIIof
ProclamationNo.3,issuedonMarch25,1986,andthereorganization.'Arethosewordsnecessary?Can
we not just say 'result of the reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution'? In other words,
mustwemakespecificreferencetoProclamationNo.3?
Mr. SUAREZ. Yes. I think the committee feels that is necessary, because in truth there has been a
reorganization by virtue of Proclamation No. 3. In other words, there are two stages of reorganization
coveredbythissection.
Mr.PADILIA.Iunderstandthereisareorganizationcommitteeheadedbyaminister?
Mr.SUAREZ.PhilippineCommissiononGovernmentReorganization.
Mr.PADILLA.Butwhetherthathasalreadybeenimplementedornot,Idonotbelieveinit.Therehasbeen
aplan,butIdonotthinkithasbeenimplemented.Ifwewanttoincludeanypreviousreorganizationafteror
beforetheratification,whydowenotjustsayreorganizationbeforeoraftertheratification'tosimplifythe
provision and eliminate twoandahalf sentences that may not be necessary? And as a result of the
reorganization, if the committee feels there has been reorganization before ratification and there be
reorganizationafter,wejustsay'beforeoraftertheratificationofthisConstitution.
Mr.SUAREZ.Somethinglikethisasaresultofthereorganizationeffectedbeforeoraftertheratificationof
theConstitutionontheunderstanding,withthestatementintotherecords,thatthiswouldbeapplicableto
thosereorganizedoutpursuanttotheFreedomConstitutionalso.
Mr. PADILLA. That is understood if there has been a reorganization before the ratification or a
reorganization after the ratification." (RECORDS of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 5, p. 416)
(Emphasisprovided)
ItshouldalsoberecalledthatthedeadlineforthereorganizationunderProclamationNo.3was"oneyearfrom
February25,1986"(ArticleIII,Section2),oruptoFebruary24,1987.ExecutiveOrderNo.17itselfprovidedthat
the review/assessment of personnel be completed "not later than February 24, 1987." But, confronted with the
reality of the ratification of the Constitution before that deadline without reorganization having been completed,
therewasneedforaprovisionallowingforitscontinuanceevenafterratificationanduntilcompleted.Itwasalso
to beat that deadline that EO 127 and similar issuances, providing for the reorganization of departments of
government, were all dated 30 January 1987 or prior to the plebiscite held on 2 February 1987. The intent to
continueandcompletethereorganizationsstartedisselfevidentinSECTION16.
InJosevs.Arroyo,etal.(G.R.No.78435,August11,1987),whichwasaPetitionforcertiorariandProhibitionto
enjoin the implementation of Executive Order No. 127, we recognized that the reorganization pursuant to
ProclamationNo.3asmandatedbySECTION16,wastocontinueevenafterratificationwhenwestated:
The contention of petitioner that EO No. 127 is violative of the provision of the 1987 Constitution
guaranteeing career civil service employees security of tenure overlooks the provision of Section 16, Art.
XVIII(TransitoryProvisions)whichexplicitlyauthorizestheremovalofcareercivilserviceemployeesnotfor
causebutasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.3datedMarch25,1986andthe
reorganizationfollowingtheratificationoftheConstitution.Byvirtueofsaidprovision,thereorganizationof
the Bureau of Customs under Executive Order No. 127 may continue even after the ratification of this
Constitution and career civil service employees may be separated from the service without cause as a
resultofsuchreorganization.(Emphasisours)
Withduerespecttothemajority,wedisagreewithitsconclusionthattheforegoingpronouncementismere"obiter
dictum."
Anobiterdictumordictumhasbeendefinedasaremarkoropinionuttered,bytheway.Itisastatementof
the court concerning a question which was not directly before it (In re Hess 23 A. 2d. 298, 301, 20 N.J.
Misc.12).Itislanguageunnecessarytoadecision,(a)rulingonanissuenotraised,or(an)opinionofa
judgewhichdoesnotembodytheresolutionordeterminationofthecourt,andismadewithoutargumentor
fullconsiderationofthepoint(Lawsonv.US,176F2d49,51,85U.S.App.D.C.167).Itisanexpressionof
opinionbythecourtorjudgeonacollateralquestionnotdirectlyinvolved,(CrescentRingCo.v.Travelers
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
IndemnityCo.132A.106,107,102N.J.Law85)ornotnecessaryforthedecisionDuBellv.UnionCentral
LifeIns.Co.,29,So.2d709,712211La.167).
In the case at bar, however, directly involved and squarely before the Court was the issue of whether EO 127
violatesSection2(3)ofArticleIXBofthe1987Constitutionagainstremovalofcivilserviceemployeesexceptfor
cause."Petitionerbattedfortheaffirmativeoftheproposition,whilerespondentscontendedthat"removalofcivil
serviceemployeeswithoutcauseisallowednotonlyundertheProvisionalConstitutionbutalsounderthe1987
ConstitutionifthesameismadepursuanttoareorganizationaftertheratificationoftheConstitution."
It may be that the Court dismissed that Petition for being premature, speculative and purely anticipatory"
inasmuchaspetitionerthereinhad"notreceivedanycommunicationterminatingorthreateningtoterminatehis
services." But that was only one consideration. The Court still proceeded to decide all the issues adversatively
contested by the parties, namely "1) that the expiration date of February 25, 1 987 fixed by Section 2 of
ProclamationNo.3onwhichsaidExecutiveorderisbasedhadalreadylapsed2)thattheExecutiveOrderhas
notbeenpublishedintheOfficialGazetteasrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandSection11oftheRevised
Administrative Code and 3) that its enforcement violates Section 2(3) of Article IX B of the 1987 Constitution
againstremovalofcivilserviceemployeesexceptforcause."
The ruling of the Court, therefore, on the Constitutional issues presented, particularly, the lapse of the period
mandated by Proclamation No. 3, and the validity of EO 127, cannot be said to be mere "obiter." They were
ultimateissuesdirectlybeforetheCourt,expresslydecidedinthecourseoftheconsiderationofthecase,sothat
anyresolutionthereonmustbeconsideredasauthoritativeprecedent,andnotameredictum(SeeValliv.US,94
F2d687certiorari granted 58 S. Ct. 760, 303 U.S. 82 L. Ed. 1092 See also Weedin v. Tayokichi Yamada 4 F.
(2d)455). Suchresolutionwouldnotloseitsvalueasaprecedentjustbecausethedispositionofthecasewas
l w p h 1 . t
alsomadeonsomeotherground.
.....And this rule applies as to all pertinent questions although only incidentally involved, which are
presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case, and lead up to the final
conclusion(NorthernPac.RyCo.v.Baker,D.C.Wash.,3F.Suppl.1SeealsoWisconsinPowerandLight
Co. v. City of Beloit 254 NW 119 Chase v. American Cartage Co. 186 N.W. 598 City of Detroit, et al. v.
PublicUtilitiesComm.286N.W.368).Accordingly,apointexpresslydecideddoesnotloseitsvalueasa
precedentbecausethedispositionofthecaseismadeonsomeotherground.(Wagnerv.ComProducts
Refining Co. D.C. N.J. 28 F 2d 617) Where a case presents two or more points, any one of which is
sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court actually decides all such points, the case is an
authoritative precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can be regarded as having
merelythestatusofadictum(SeeU.S.TitleInsuranceandTrustCo.,Cal.,44S.Ct.621,265U.S.472,68
L. Ed. 1110 Van Dyke v. Parker 83 F. (2d) 35) and one point should not be denied authority merely
becauseanotherpointwasmoredweltonandmorefullyarguedandconsidered.(RichmondScrewAnchor
Co.v.U.S.48S.Ct.194,275U.S.331,72L.Ed.303)"
ItistruethatinPalmaFernandezvs.delaPaz(G.R.No.78946,April15,1986,160SCRA751),wehadstated:
The argument that, on the basis of this provision (Section 26 of Executive Order No. 119, or the
'ReorganizationActoftheMinistryofHealth'),petitioner'stermofofficeendedon30January1987andthat
shecontinuedintheperformanceofherdutiesmerelyinaholdovercapacityandcouldbetransferredto
another position without violating any of her legal rights, is untenable. The occupancy of a position in a
(undertheProvisionalConstitution),butadvancedto2February1987whenthe1987Constitutionbecame
effective(DeLeon,etal.,vs.Hon.Esguerra,etal.,G.R.No.78059,31August1987,153SCRA602).After
theddatetheprovisionsofthelatteronsecurityoftenuregovern.
The factual situation in the two cases, however, radically differ. In the cited case, Dra. PalmaFernandez, the
petitioner,hadalreadybeenextendedapermanentappointmentasAssistantDirectorforProfessionalServicesof
theEastAvenueMedicalCenterbutwasstillbeingtransferredbytheMedicalCenterChieftotheResearchOffice
against her consent. Separation from the service as a result of reorganization was not involved. The question
then arose as to whether the latter official had the authority to transfer or whether the power to appoint and
removesubordinateofficersandemployeeswaslodgedintheSecretaryofHealth.Relatedtothatissuewasthe
vitaloneofwhetherornothertransfer,effectedon29May1987,wastantamounttoaremovalwithoutcause.
Significant,too,isthefactthatthetransferwasbasicallymade"intheinterestoftheservice"pursuanttoSection
24(c)ofPDNo.807,ortheCivilServiceDecree,andnotbecauseshewasbeingreorganizedoutbyvirtueofEO
119orthe"ReorganizationActoftheMinistryofHealth,"althoughthesaidActwasinvokedafterthefact.Andso
itwasthatSECTION16wasnevermentioned,muchlessinvokedinthePalmaFernandezcase.
Finally, on this point, it is inaccurate for the majority to state that there were no reorganization orders after
ratification.Therewere,namely,EO181(ReorganizationActoftheCivilServiceCommission),June1,1987EO
193(ReorganizationActoftheOfficeofEnergyAffairs),June10,1987EO230(ReorganizationActofNEDA),
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
July 22, 1987 EO 262 (Reorganization Act of the Department of Local Government), July 25, 1987 EO 297
(ReorganizationActoftheOfficeofthePressSecretary),July25,1987.
TheElementofGoodFaith
The majority concedes that reorganization can be undertaken provided it be in good faith but concludes that
CommissionerMisonwasnotingoodfaith.
Theaforesaidconclusioniscontradictedbytherecords.
Executive Order No. 127, dated 30 January 1987, specifically authorized the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs"structurallyandfunctionally"andprovidedfortheabolitionofallunitsandpositionsthereofnotincluded
inthestructuralorganizationSelection55).
As stated heretofore, it was the former Commissioner of Customs, Alexander A. Padilla who, on 24 May 1987,
transmittedtotheDepartmentofFinanceforapprovaltheproposed"positionstructureandstaffingpattern"ofthe
Bureau of Customs. This was approved by the Department of Finance. Thereafter, it was transmitted to and
approved by the Department of Budget and Management on 7 September 1987 for implementation. Under the
oldstaffingpattern,therewere7,302positionswhileunderthenewstaffingpattern,thereare6,530positions.

ExecutiveOrders"provided:
By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive orders for each agency on reorganization
shallbe:
b.offeredanotherpositioninthesamedepartmentoragency,or
c.informedoftheirtermination.(emphasissupplied)
On 25 November 1987 Commissioner Mison asked for and was granted by the President an extension up to
February1988withinwhichtocompletelyundertakethereorganizationoftheBureauofCustoms.
On 6 January 1988, he issued Bureau of Customs Memorandum "Re Guidelines on the Implementation of
Reorganization Executive Orders" reiterating the above quoted portion of the Malacanang Memorandum of 2
October 1987. Pursuant thereto, on 28 January 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed uniform letters of
termination to the employees listed on pages 15, 16 and 17 of the majority opinion, effective on 28 February
1988,withintheextendedperiodgranted.
The records further show that upon Commissioner Mison's official inquiry, Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A.
Ordoez,renderedthefollowingOpinion:
...Itisbelievedthatcustomsemployeeswhoarereorganizedoutinthecourseoftheimplementationof
E.O.No.127(reorganizingtheDepartmentofFinance)neednotbeinformedofthenatureandcauseof
theirseparationfromtheservice.Itisenoughthattheybe'informedoftheirtermination'pursuanttosection
1(c)oftheMemorandumdatedOctober2,1987ofPresidentAquino,whichreads:
1. By October 21, 1987, all employees covered by the Executive orders for each agency on
xxxxxxxxx
c)Informedoftheirterminations.
Theconstitutionalmandatethat'noofficeroremployeeofthecivilserviceshallberenewedorsuspended
exceptforcauseasprovidedbylaw'(Sec.2(4)(sic),ArticleIXBofthe1987Constitution)doesnotapplyto
employees who are separated from office as a result of the reorganization of that Bureau as directed in
ExecutiveOrderNo.127.
xxxxxxxxx
Regardingyour(third)query,theissueastotheconstitutionalityofExecutiveOrderNo.127issetatrest,
aftertheSupremeCourtresolvedtodismissthepetitionforcertiorariquestioningitsenforceability,forlack
ofmerit(seeJosevs.Arroyo,etal.,supra).(OpinionNo.41,s.1988,March3,1988)(Emphasissupplied)
The former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Celerina G. Gotladera likewise periodically consulted by
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Commissioner Mison, also expressed the opinion that "it is not a prerequisite prior to the separation of an
employee pursuant to reorganization that he be administratively charged." (Annex 16, p. 411, Rollo, G.R. No.
85310)
Moreover, the records show that the final selection and placement of personnel was done by a Placement
Committee, one of whose members is the Head of the Civil Service Commission Field Office, namely, Mrs.
Purificacion Cuerdo The appointment of employees made by Commissioner Mison was based on the list
approvedbysaidPlacementCommittee.
ButthemajorityfurtherfaultsMisonfordefyingthePresident'sdirectivetohaltfurtherlayoffsasaconsequence
ofreorganization,citingOPMemoof14October1987,reading:
nofurtherlayoffsthisyearofpersonnelasaresultofthegovernmentreorganization.(p.45,Decision)
Theforegoing,however,mustbedeemedsupersededbylaterdevelopments,namely,thegranttoCommissioner
MisonbythePresidenton22December1987ofagraceperioduntiltheendofFebruary1988withinwhichto
completely undertake the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs, which was, in fact, accomplished by 28
February1988.
Tofurthershowlackofgoodfaith,themajoritystatesthatCommissionerMisonfailedtoobservetheprocedure
laid down by EO 17, supra, directing inter alia that a notice of separation be issued to an employee to be
terminatedindicatingthereinthereason/sorground/sforsuchseparation.Thatrequirement,however,doesnot
appearinSection59ofEO127,whichprovidesonthecontrary"thatthoseincumbentswhosepositionsarenot
included in the new position structure and staffing pattern of the Ministry or who are not reappointed shall be
deemedseparatedfromtheservice."TherightgrantedbyEO17toanemployeetobeinformedofthegroundfor
hisseparationmustbedeemedtohavebeenrevokedbytherepealingclauseofEO127(Section67)providing
that"alllaws,ordinancesorpartsthereof,whichareinconsistentwiththisExecutiveOrder,areherebyrepealed
andmodifiedaccordingly."
Moreover,Section11ofEO17explicitlyexceptsfromitscoverageareorganizationpursuanttoEO5.Thus
The Executive Order shallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them, presidential
appointees, casual and contractual employees, or officials and employees removed pursuant to
desciplinary proceedings under the Civil Service law and rules, and to those laid off as a result of
reorganizationundertakenpursuanttoExecutiveOrderNo.5.(Emphasisours)
ThatEO127wasissuedpursuanttoorinimplementationofEO5,isshownbyitsintroductoryportionreading:
RecallingthatthereorganizationofthegovernmentismandatedexpresslybyArticleII,Section1(a)and
HavinginmindthatpursuanttoExecutiveorderNo.5(1986),itisdirectedthatthenecessaryandproper
changes in the organizational and functional structures of the government, its agencies and
service(Italicssupplied)
ConstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.6656
ThemajorityalsoreliesonRepublicActNo.6656entitledan"ActtoProtecttheSecurityofTenureofCivilService
OfficersandEmployeesintheImplementationofGovernmentReorganization,"particularlySection2thereof,to
testthegoodfaithofCommissionerMison.
We are of the view, however, that in providing for retroactivity in its Section 13, RA 6656 clashes frontally with
SECTION16.
1) SECTION 16 clearly recognizes that career service employees separated from the service by reason of the
"complete reorganization of the government" pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 may be separated NOT FOR
CAUSE.Andyet,RA6656requirestheexactoppositeseparationFORCAUSE.Itwouldnotberemisstoquote
theprovisionagain:
due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exist when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a
law.Theexistenceofanyorsomeofthefollowingcircumstancesmaybeconsideredasevidenceofbad
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
separationprovidedinSection3hereof.(RepublicActNo.6156)
Thestandardslaiddownarethe"traditional"criteriaforremovalofemployeesfromthecareerservice,e.g.valid
cause, due notice and hearing, abolition of, or redundancy of offices. Proclamation No. 3, on the other hand,
effectuates the "progressive" type of reorganization dictated by the exigencies of the historical and political
upheavalatthetime.The"traditional"typeislimitedinscope.Itisconcernedwiththeindividualapproachwhere
theparticularemployeeinvolvedischargedadministrativelyandwheretherequisitesofnoticeandhearinghave
to be observed. The "progressive" kind of reorganization, on the other hand, is the collective way. It is wider in
scope,andisthereorganizationcontemplatedunderSECTION16.
2) By providing for reinstatement in its Section 9, RA 6656 adds a benefit not included in SECTION 16. The
benefits granted by the latter provision to employees separated NOT FOR CAUSE but as a consequence of
reorganization are "separation pay, retirement, and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general
application in force at the time of their separation." The benefit of reinstatement is not included. RA 6656,
however,allowsreinstatement.ThatitcannotdobecauseunderSECTION16,itisnotoneofthelaws"inforceat
thetimeoftheirseparation."
TheConstitutionistheparamountlawtowhichalllawsmustconform.ItisfromtheConstitutionthatallstatutes
mustderivetheirbearings.ThelegislativeauthorityoftheStatemustyieldtotheexpressionofthesovereignwill.
No statutory enactment can disregard the Charter from which it draws its own existence (Phil. Long Distance
TelephoneCo.v.CollectorofInternalRevenue,90Phil.674[1952]).But,thatisexactlywhatRA6656doesin
providing for retroactivity it disregards and contravenes a Constitutional imperative. To save it, it should be
applied and construed prospectively and not retroactively notwithstanding its explicit provision. Then, and only
then,woulditmakegoodlaw.
EffectsofReorganization
Tobesure,thereorganizationcouldeffectthetenureofmembersofthecareerserviceasdefinedinSection5,
Article IV of Presidential Decree No. 807, and may even result in the separation from the office of some
meritoriousemployees.Buteventhen,thegreatergoodofthegreatestnumberandtherightofthecitizenrytoa
goodgovernment,andastheythemselveshavemandatedthroughthevehicleofProclamationNo.3,providethe
justificationforthesaidinjurytotheindividual.Intermsofvalues,theinterestofanemployeetosecurityoftenure
mustyieldtotheinterestoftheentirepopulaceandtoanefficientandhonestgovernment.
Butareorganizedemployeeisnotwithoutrights.Hisrightliesinhispastservices,theentitlementtowhichmust
beprovidedforbylaw.EO127providesforthesameinitsSection59,andsodoesSECTION16whenthelatter
specifiedthatcareercivilserviceemployeesseparatedfromtheservicenotforcause:
shallbeentitledtoappropriateseparationpayandtoretirementandotherbenefitsaccruingtothemunder
thelawsofgeneralapplicationinforceatthetimeoftheirseparation.Inlieuthereof,attheoptionofthe
employees, they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies, including governmentowned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the
existingpolicy,hasbeenaccepted.
This is a reward for the employee's past service to the Government. But this is all There is no vested property
righttobereemployedinareorganizedoffice.
The right to an office or to employment with government or any of its agencies is not a vested property
right,andremovaltherefromwillnotsupportthequestionofdueprocess"Yantsinv.Aberdeen,54Wash
2d 787, 345 P 2d 178). A civil service employee does not have a constitutionally protected right to his
position,whichpositionisinthenatureofapublicoffice,politicalincharacterandheldbywayofgrantor
privilegeextendedbygovernmentgenerallyhehasbeenheldtohavenopropertyrightorvestedinterest
towhichdueprocessguarantiesextend(SeeTaylorv.Beckham178U.S.548,44LEd.1187Angillyv.US
CA2NY199F2d642Peopleex.rel.Bakerv.Wilson,39IIIApp2d443,189NE2d1Kellihellerv.NY
StateCivilServiceCom21Misc2d1034,194NYS2d89).
Toensure,however,thatnomeritoriousemployeehasbeenseparatedfromtheservice,therewouldbenoharm,
infact,itcoulddoalotofgood,iftheCommissionerofCustomsreviewstheevaluationandplacementshehasso
far made and sees to it that those terminated are included in a consolidated list to be given preference by
departmentswhoarerecruiting(Section2[a],BOCMemorandum,January6,1988).
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
Conclusion
Premises considered, and subject to the observation hereinabove made, it is our considered view that the
separationfromtheservice"NOTFORCAUSEbutasaresultofthereorganizationpursuanttoProclamationNo.
3datedMarch25,1986"oftheaffectedofficersandemployeesoftheBureauofCustomsshouldbeUPHELD,
andtheResolutionsoftheCivilServiceCommission,dated30June1988,20September1988,and16November
1988shouldbeSETASIDEforhavingbeenissuedingraveabuseofdiscretion.
Republic Act No. 6656, in so far as it provides for retroactivity, should be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
beingrepugnanttotheletterandspiritofSection16,ArticleXVIIIofthe1987Constitution.
Fernan,C.J.,Narvasa,Feliciano,Regalado,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1ProcNo.3,(PROVISIONALCONST.),art.II,sec.l(a).
2Supra,art.III,secs.14.
3Proc.No.1(1986).
4CONST.(1986),supra,art.1,sec.3.
5Supra.
6Thevarious"OICcases",amongthem,Sotsv.Pimentel,G.R.No.73970,April10,1986Palmav.
Fortich,G.R.No.59679,January29,1987Ignaciov.Banata,G.R.No.74720,August31,1987
AssociationofBarangayCouncilsofLasPinasv.Juntilla,G.R.No.78965,November17,1987Ramosv.
Lorenzana,G.R.No.80282,November26,1987DelMontev.Ferrer,G.R.78963,January13,1988
Yasayv.Flores,G.R.No.81047,January7,1988endingwithDeLeonv.Esguerra,No.78059,August
31,1987,153SCRA602.
7Josev.Arroyo,G.R.No.78435,August11,1987PalmaFernandezv.DelaPaz,No.78496,August15,
1988,160SCRA751.
8Exec.Ord.No.17,sec.3.
988O.G.20092024(Apr.,1987).
10Exec.Ord.No.127,supra,secs.3338.
11DeLeonv.Esguerra,supra.Thewriterofthisopiniondissented,andmaintainedthatthenew
ConstitutionwasratifiedonFebruary11,1987.
12Rollo,G.R.No.85310,31731.
13Id.,317.
14Id.,8.
15Rollo,G.R.No.81954,24rollo,G.R.No.81967,27rollo,G.R.No.82023,37seealsorollo,id.,G.R.
No.85310,8.
16ThelasteighteenarethesuccessfulemployeesintheappealwiththeCivilServiceCommission(subject
ofG.R.No.85310)whosereinstatementtheCommissionorderedpendingfurtherproceedingsherein.We
considerthemimpleadedaspartiesrespondentsinG.R.No.85310.Also,theCustomsemployeesinvolved
havebeenimpleadedaspartiesinmorethanonepetitioneitheraspetitionersorrespondents.
17Rollo,id.,G.R.No.85310,8according,however,tothepetitionersinG.R.86241,atotalof397
employeeswereterminated.id.,260formerSen.AmbrosioPadilla,amicuscuriae,placedthefigureat493
(G.R.No.85310,id.,993).
18Rollo,id.,G.R.No.85310,79alsorollo,G.R.No.85335,36.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
19Rollo,id.,G.R.No.85310,424
20Rollo,G.R.No.86241,144
21SenenDimaguilaandRomuloBadilloearlierinstitutedinthisCourtG.R.Nos.81968and81955butwere
allowed,byourResolutionofJuly5,1988,towithdrawandjointheappealsubjectoftheCivilService
Commission'sResolutionofNovember11,1988,Seerollo,G.R.No.82023,169
2284O.G.Supp.14(June,1988).
23Supra,3.
24CONST.(1987),art.XVIII,sec.16.
25ThiswasraisedbytheCivilServiceCommissioninG.R.No.86241.Failuretoexhaustadministrative
remedieswasraisedinG.R.No.81954and81917bytheSolicitorGeneral.
26SarmientoIIIv.Mison,No.L79974,December17,1987,153SCRA549,551552.
27Pres.DecreeNo.807,sec.39.Theprovisionreads:"Appeals.(a)Appeals,whereallowable,shallbe
madebythepartyadverselyaffectedbythedecisionwithinfifteendaysfromreceiptofthedecisionunless
apetitionforreconsiderationisseasonablyfiled,whichpetitionshallbedecidedwithinfifteendays.Notice
oftheappealshallbefiledwiththediscipliningoffice,whichshallforwardtherecordsofthecase,together
withthenoticeofappeal,totheappellateauthoritywithinfifteendaysfromfilingofthenoticeofappeal,with
itscomment,ifany.Thenoticeofappealshallspecificallystatethedateofthedecisionappealedfromand
thedateofreceiptthereof.Itshallalsospecificallysetforthclearlythegroundsrelieduponforexcepting
fromthedecision(b)Apetitionforreconsiderationshallbebasedonlyonanyofthefollowinggrounds:(1)
newevidencehasbeendiscoveredwhichmateriallyaffectsthedecisionrendered(2)thedecisionisnot
supportedbytheevidenceonrecordor(3)errorsoflaworirregularitieshavebeencommittedprejudicial
totheinterestoftherespondentProvided,Thatonlyonepetitionforreconsiderationshallbeentertained."
28Rep.ActNo.6656,supra,sec.8.Theprovisionreads:"Sec.8.Anofficeroremployeewhoisstillnot
satisfiedwiththedecisionoftheappointingauthoritymayfurtherappealwithten(10)daysfromreceipt
thereoftotheCivilServiceCommissionwhichshallrenderadecisionthereonwithinthirty(30)daysand
whosedecisionshallbefinalandexecutory."
29CONST.,art.IX,sec,7.Theprovisionreads:"Sec.7.EachCommissionshalldecidebyamajorityvote
ofallitsMembersanycaseormatterbroughtbeforeitwithinsixtydaysfromthedateofitssubmissionfor
decisionorresolution.Acaseormatterisdeemedsubmittedfordecisionorresolutionuponthefilingofthe
lastpleading,brief,ormemorandumrequiredbytherulesoftheCommissionorbytheCommissionitself.
UnlessotherwiseprovidedbythisConstitutionorbylaw,anydecision,order,orrulingofeachCommission
maybebroughttotheSupremeCourtoncertioraribytheaggrievedpartywithinthirtydaysfromreceiptof
acopythereof.
30Rollo,id.,G.R.No.85310,82.
31id.,415.
32CONST.(1987),supra.
33SeeAratucv.CommissiononElections,Nos.L4970509,4971721,February8,1979,88SCRA251.
34Supra,271.
35Supra.
36Aratucsupra,270.
37CONST.(1987),supra,art.IXsec.2(2).Tobemoreprecise,the1987Constitutiongivesthe
Commission"exclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverall[election]contests.'
38Supra,art.IX,sec.7.
39Aratucsupra,271emphasissupplied.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
40Rep.ActNo.6656,supra,sec.8.
41RULESOFCOURT,Rule65,sec.1.
42CONST.(1987),art.IX,sec.7,supra.
43Phil.AmericanLifeIns.Co.vs.SocialSecurityComNo.L20383,May24,1967,20SCRA162,
44Exec.Ord.No.127,supra,sec.59.
45Supra.
46Rollo,id.,G.R.No.81954,36.
47Exec.Ord.No.127,supra,see.34rollo,id.,G.R.No.81954.
48Exec.Ord.No.127,supra,sec.59.
49Rollo,id.,G.R.No.81954,12emphasisintheoriginal.
50CONST.(1986),Supra,art.IX,sec.2.
51CONST.(1987),supra,art.IXBsec.2(3).
52August8,1986.
53Supra,sec.1(a)
54G.R.No.78435,August11,1987.
55Supra,3.
56CONST.(1987),supra,art.XVIII,sec.16.
57Rollo,id.,G.R.No.81954,216rollo,id.,G.R.No.81967,64rollo,id.,G.R.No.82023,76.
58Supra.
59SeeExec.Ord.No.17,supra,sec.1.
60Rollo,id.,G.R.No.85310,18rollo,id.,G.R.No.86241,14.
61Id.id.,13.
62Id.,37id.,33.
63CONST.(1987),art.XVIII,sec.16,supra.
64Seefn.11.
65CONST.(1935),art.XVI,sec.4.
66CONST.(1973),art.XVII,sec.9.
67CONST.(1986)art.III,sec.2,supra.
68Ginsonv.MunicipalityofMurcia,No.L46585,February8,1988,157SCRA1DelaLlanav.Alba,No.
57883,March12,1982,112SCRA294Cruzv.PrimiciasJr.,No.L28573,June13,1968,23SCRA998.
69IIIRECORDOFTHECONSTITUTIONALCOMMISSION,16151616(1986).
70DeLeonv.Esguerra,supraPalmaFernandezv.DelaPaz,supra.
71Exec.Ord.No.17,supra.
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
*Paradoxically,ExecutiveOrderNo.17wouldhaveprovideda"cause"forremoval.
72OPMemo(October14,1987).
73Supra,seefn.7.
74Arroyo,supra,3.
75ThepetitionerwasLeonardoJose,aCollectorIIIattheBureauofCustoms.
76Supra,2.
7755Phil.565(1930).
78Supra.
79Art.III,sec.1andart.IX(B)sec.2(3).
80Supra.InPalmaFernandez,weupheldclaimsofauthorityoftenureintheabsenceofabonafide
reorganization.Inthatcase,therewasnovalidabolitionofanofficebutmerely,achangeinnameof
position.Wedidnotforeclosethereinthevalidityofaremoval"notforcause,"providedthatthereisavalid
reorganization.
81Ginsonv.MunicipalityofMurcia,supraDelaLlanav.Alba,supraCruzv.PrimiciasJr.,supra.
82PalmaFernandez,supra.Inthatcase,theofficeof"ChiefofClinic'waspurportedlyabolishedandinits
placeanofficeof"AssistantDirectorforProfessionalServices"wascreated.Weheldthatthetwopositions
"arebasicallyoneandthesameexceptforthechangeofnomenclature(767.)
83GinsonsupraCruz,supra.
**Althoughaswealsosaid,ExecutiveOrderNo.17itselfimposeda"cause"forremovalsunderthe
FreedomConstitution.
84Rep.ActNo.6156,supra.
85SeeG.R.Nos.81964,81967,id.,1011.
86G.R.No.86421,id.,31.
87OPMemo(Oct.,14,1987),supra.
88SeeFreeTelephoneWorkersUnionv.MinisterofLaborandEmployment,No.58184,October30,
1981,1108SCRA757.
89Supra.WithrespecttoVicenteFeria,Jr.,therecordsrevealthathisappointmentwasextendedonApril
22,1986.(G.R.No.81967,id.,7.)Forthatreason,hecannotbesaidtobean"incumbent"forpurposesof
reorganization,towhomareappointmentmaybeissued.Becausehisappointmentcameafterthe
promulgationoftheFreedomConstitution,heis,toallintentsandpurposes,anappointeeasaresultof
reorganization.
90Supra,757.
91Supra,sec.9.
92Supra,sec.13.
93.Supra,sec.2.
MelencioHerrera,J.:
1ExecutiveOrdersNos.116(AgricultureandFood)117EducationCultureandSports)119(Health)120
(Tourism)123(SocialWelfareandDevelopment)124(PublicWorksandHighways)125(Transportation
andCommunication)126(LaborandEmployment)128(ScienceandTechnology129(AgrarianReform)
1/7/2016 G.R.No.81954
131(NaturalResources)132(ForeignAffairs)and133(TradeandIndustry).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

08 Dario Vs Mison PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

08 Dario Vs Mison PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1/7/2016 G.R.No.

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IS ORDERED TO REINSTATE THE EMPLOYEES SEPARATED AS A

Section11.ThisExecutiveOrdershallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them,

SEC. 2. Reorganization. The Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as Ministry, is hereby

On 2 October 1987 "Malacanang Memorandum Re: Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization

It is my concern that ongoing process of government reorganization be conducted in a manner that is

4. Each department/agency shall constitute a Reorganization Appeals Board at the central

On 2 October 1987 "Malacanang Memorandum Re: Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization

Section11.ThisExecutiveOrdershallnotapply to elective officials or those designated to replace them,

SEC. 2. Reorganization. The Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as Ministry, is hereby

On 2 October 1987 "Malacanang Memorandum Re: Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization

It is my concern that ongoing process of government reorganization be conducted in a manner that is

4. Each department/agency shall constitute a Reorganization Appeals Board at the central

On 2 October 1987 "Malacanang Memorandum Re: Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization

Você também pode gostar