Pubcorp Make sdfsdfUp Class Transcribed Aug11

Pubcorp Aug11 make up class part 1

In our last discussion we stated that the constitutional provision article 7715 on midnight appointments does not apply to appointments that may be made by the local chief executives because there is yet no law prohibiting them from issuing the appointments provided that the appointees are qualified meaning they possess the necessary qualifications for the office and noted this on the case of Irog vs. Jurmentado where the appointment issued by the former Governor in favor of petitioner was based on merit. The fact that petitioner has already been discharging the functions a year before in an acting capacity clearly negating that it was a political decision. So here the SC noted that the Circular issued by the CSC under 10988 prohibiting midnight appointments does not apply to pet Irog because precisely pet irog assumed office even before the effectivity of the CSC issuance prohibiting midight appointment. And so is the case of De Rama wherein the SC ruled that the appointments made by the Mayor of ___Bangkilao_ may be valid and lack of midnight appointments in violation of constitution and again assuming that the appointments were done not for any political considerations. But let me mention here that on the basis of this issuance by CSC 10988 on June 4, 2001 in fact the SC sustained the validity of this issuance by the commission. So under this circular, there will be basis for the invalidity of these appointments that may be issued by the outgoing Mayor. so we have this case, Nazareno vs. Dumaguete. We have the the pet who were affected by the declarations made by the newly assumed Mayor Kabeses, the former Mayor who ran and lost to KAbeses ah Mayor Remullo issued original appointments about 74 original appoitments apart from promoting 14 employees in the city of Dumaguete. And so when the Mayor of Dumaguete Kabese assumed office in the flag ceremony he declaled he was not honoring the appointments issued by outgoing mayor. Thereafter, the Mayor ordered the City Administrator and the CityTreasurer not to pay the salaries of the Petitioners. The petitioners here were those who were issued either original or promotional appointments by the outgoing Mayor. One issue in this case involves the validity of circular of the CSC 10988 prohibiting midnight appointments. Now clearly in this case there was so many appointments by the original or promotional issued by the outgoing mayor thus mass midnight appointments and here SC sustained the validity of the CS circular prohibiting mass midnight appointments. It does not mean that all mass midnight appointments are invalid; it only means that there must be basis for the issuance of these appointments. In other words, there are conditions for validity of this supposed midnight appointments. As general rule appointments by the outgoing/losing elective candidate made after elections are prohibited. What are the reasons why these appointments are prohibited on the basis of circular 10988? One is to prevent animosity between the outgoing and incoming official. Secondly, to allow the new administration a clear hand in carrying out its policies. It may pursue policies and appointments must be made in accord with the policies and programs of the new administration. Third reason here is that promotions ought not to be used as a tool for political patronage or as a reward for services rendered by these employees outgoing local elective officials. Not all mass midnight appointments are invalid, so what are the conditions the requirements for the validity of this supposed midnight appointments that may be issued by the local chief executives. So these are the conditions: it must go through the regular screening by the personnels selections board of the local. You know in every agency of the government included of course LGUs there is this personnel selecting board tasked to screen candidates for any position in the service. There must be a regular screening by the personnel selection board before the appointed period or the issuance of the appointment assumed by the courts. In this case there was only one meeting done by the PSB of the city of Dumaguete and take note there were almost 89 issuances/appointments made by the outgoing mayor, how can this be done in a single meeting of the PSB. Second condition, the appointee must be qualified meaning he has complied with the minimum qualifications for the position. Third requirement, there is this need because of urgency in order not to jeopardize public function, in order to endanger public safety there must be this appointment even by the outgoing Mayor. Another condition, it is not one of those mass appointments issued after the election. Clearly in this case, the SC ruled that these appointments issued by the outgoing Mayor Remullo clearly are mass midnight appointments and these conditions were not satisfied.Now, we have stated here the rule on the transfer or reassignment of a public officer when do we say that a public officer or employee is given reassignment or transfer his employee. The rule here really is it depends upon the nature of the appointment issued to the employee depending on whether or not in the appointment itself there is this specific station. Because if in his appointment there is a specific station this employee may not be reassigned elsewhere without his consent. It follows therefore that the appointment of the officer or employee is one without a specific station it means that the appointing power has the right to reassignment in the exigency of the service. Public interest demands that there should be this reassignment so long as it will not be a diminution in terms of status, rank or salary. There should be no substantial change in the employees title, rank, or salary. We noted in the case of Dean Santamaria vs. UP President Lopez there was violation of his right to security of tenure because in the appointment of Dean Santamaria it was clearly indicated that he has a fixed term of 5years as Dean of the College of Education, take note very specific, and when he was reassigned to the Office of the President this clearly violated his security of tenure guarantee as has been a fixed term of 5 years and having a specified workplace. In the case of DECS vs. CA, so here the matter of this principal Gloria Mano whose appointment indicates that she is a principal in the division of Quezon City schools and she was assigned in Carlos Albert High School but after 5 years there was an issuances transferring her to other public school. Question, is this not a violation of her security of tenure because here the principal complained that she has tenure of office and has been assigned in Carlos Albert School. The SC ruled that she can be reassigned from one public high school to another public high school as along as in Quezon City because her appointment is as principal in division of City schools.In the case of Gloria vs. Casiano, we have here Casiano who received a notice reassigning him from School Division Supt of Quezon City to Vocational School Supt. of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology the SC noted the lack of temporariness in such reassignment. In the case where there is an indication that the transfer or reassignment is of indefinite duration this is constructive dismissal. We have in this case that it was without the consent of Casiano. Clearly from the reading of the memorandum issued by the Sec. of DECS Gloria as approved by the President of the Philippines it indicates that the reassignment of Casiano will best fit his qualifications and experience considering his expertise in vocational and technical education. So clearly there was no intention to temporarily assign Casiano in the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology so this is constructive dismissal in violation of Casianos right to security of tenure. In Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, we have here ( to recall: I told you that Directors of the CSC they were reassigned to provinces to Region 5, in the case of Fernandez and Delima Region 3 although they were previously Directors of Personnel audit in the case of Fernandez and Personnel Relations in the case of Delima the SC sustained the authority of the Commission to effect this issued reassignment. Why? Because the appointments of petitioners are to their positions as Directors where their appointment did not indicate a particular office of location so they cannot complain as to their right to security of tenureis violated.) Padolina vs. Fernandez, the issuance of assignment order by the Sec. of DOST Padolina reassigning Ofelia Fernandez from Finance Division Chief to Taguig Headquarters of Pag Asa and the new assignment she did not have anymore supervision she enjoyed when she was still in her original field of assignment. In her old assignment she had 41 subirdinates but in her new assignment she has no one to supervise. Here the SC ruled that this is a violation of Fernendez right to security of tenure. There is here a change a diminution in her status.In Gapa vs. Asyong, the Mayor of Butuan Plaza issued an order reconstituting the City Social Services Developments Office and the issuance likewise involve certain employees of the national DSEP, DSWD to Local Govt unit in line with Autonomy Concept of LGC. The SC sustained the authority of the Mayor that there is no transfer only physical transfer of office from the old CSSBO Bldg to the bldg of the DSWD. And the fact that Mayor Plaza designated Tuaso as OIC of this City Social Services Divisions Office does not constitute demotion in the case of these other employees, the respondents Asyong et al. This is the prerogative of the Local Chief Executive, designation which is temporary until such time that a full-pledge head of that division may be appointed. The SC sustained the power of the Mayor.In the case of Chato vs. Martinez, the Revenues Officer Martinez complained that his right to security of tenure was violated Commissioner Chato reassigned her from Field Assessment office to the Central Office not anymore assessment but rather collection so in the Collection. The SC here ruled that there is no violation of security of tenure because the law authorizes the Commissioner to effect reassignment in the exigency of the service so she is authorized to assign or reassign the Revenue officers. Also, the other reason here cited by the SC is to allow the personal desires of the employees that they should not be reassigned will be ___ government projects and programs to the prejudice of public service. In Reyes vs. Belisario, we have here an administrator of the Local Government Deputy Administration who issued an order reassigning respondents Belisario et al. The issuance by Administrator Reyes of the LWUA came after these respondents have filed against their boss Reyes before the office of the Ombudsman and here the SC ruled that there was clearly bad faith in the issuance by Reyes these reassignment order which came after the filing. Clearly this was done as retaliation in the filing of the charges against Reyes. The other reason here that clearly is bad faith is the fact that under the charter of the LGU Deputy Administration the power to assign or reassign employees of the LWUA belongs to the Board not the administrator so here Reyes is without the authority. What is given to him is the power to recommend the reassignment subject to the approval of the Board not Reyes himself issuing the assignment order. This principle in law that whenever a public officer performs an act it is simply a regular discharge of his public function not presumption of irregularity as of course is disputable as for this case there is evident bad faith. Another reason here is that he has no authority to issue the reassignments order. Now we have mention this concept of Career Executive Service now let me further elaborate on security of tenure guarantee. If you recall, that is the security of tenure guarantee given to employees in the 1st 2 levels in the career service. Security of tenure is acquired by them 1st 2 levels with respect to their positions. Any position in the 1st 2 levels, one that is appointed to any position in the 1st 2 levels acquires security of tenure as to his position. But the rule is different in the case of Career Executive Service officers in the 3rd level because the security of tenure of a Career Executive Service officers or any in the 3rd level is acquired with respect, not to their position, to their rank. That is why there is this CESO1, 2,3,4,5,6 the lower the rank the higher is the position of a Career Executive Service officer like the case of undersecretary is supposed to be CESO rank 1. So within the Career Executive Service, the officer or employee may be assigned, transfer or reassigned from one office to another, from one division to another and there is no violation of security of tenure because security of tenure is acquired as to his rank. Wherever he may go if there is such reassignment as his rank policy, that is why in the case of an employee in the 1st 2 levels can they be reassigned elsewhere? Lets say in Davao may the Mayor reassign this person criticizing him, is such reassignment order valid? It really depends upon what? Upon the nature of the appointment issued whether there is such specification in the appointment. Lets say the appointment in the case, City of Davao at San Pedro Administrative officer or City Treasurers office, of course if the appointment provides for a specific workplace that employee can only be reassigned with his or her consent. If without any specific location even without his or her consent he/she may be reassigned. Now these employees in the 1st 2 levels acquired pertaining to his position but security of tenure on the 3rd level of Career Executive Service is with respect to his rank but not to his position because the salaries or their status are based on their ranks and not on their position. In the case of Cuevas vs Bacal, we have cited this for quite a number of times, Josefina Bacal was issued an appointment as Chief Public Attorney at PAO during the time of President Ramos. She used to be the Regional Director of PAO in Cagayan de Oro then she became chief but when Estrada assumed office as the President, Estrada replaced Bacal so somebody else was appointed. Estrada appointed Demaisip, Bacal raised violation of security of tenure. The SC ruled Bacal acquired the right to security of tenure with respect to her position because that position is Chief Public Attorney has the corresponding CESO rank 1. But in the case of Bacal she is mere CESO rank 3 so the SC sustained the power of the President. It was only fitting that she got reassigned to her original workplace because the position of the Head of PAO in Cagayan de Oro in Region 10 has CESO rank 3 category. The other issue, the matter one who charges the occupancy of another person in the case here the one who replaced Bacal Demaisip is not even eligible nor she have the rank but is this allowed? Yes. He is not eligible but subsequently he my acquire the eligibility based on the performance so even eligible cannot be said to acquire security if tenure if he/she does not possess the rank for the office or position. In the case of Bacal, she ought to be appointed as CESO rank 1 for her to claim that she has a right of security of tenure pertaining to this position. So if a person is not qualified he is not a real party in interest, right? Only one who can claim that she is entitled to the office can file this petition, but in the case of Bacal she cannot complain that the one who replaced her was not even a Career Service eligible. So what are the requirements in order that employee in the 3rd level Career Service may appeal security of tenure.1. CES eligibility How can an employee be a CES eligible? The fact that an employee already passed the CES Board, the CES examination does not mean that he already possesses the rank because rank is a different matter. One qualifying for rank is based on appointment by the President, based on performance of that officer in his/her position. CES eligibility after the examination as has 4 stages before one can get CES eligibility and the fact that an employee is already qualified/passed these 4 stages does not mean that he already was assessed as an officer with rank. What gives security of tenure to the employee is the appointment by the President to the appropriate CES rank. So in the case of Bacal had she been appointed by the President Estrada to CESO rank 1 of course she can validly claim security of tenure but not in her situation as she was never appointed to CESO rank 1.

In the case of Caringal vs. PCSO, we have here petitioner who complained that his right was violated as he was separated as Assistant Dept. Manager. The SC ruled that passing the examination by the CES Board simply entitles the examinee the conferment of CES eligibility so when you passed the CES examination you may be conferred CES eligibility. It is only you have been conferred with eligibility that you may qualify for appointment in the Career Executive Service. Without the CES eligibility as in the case of Caringal he never acquired permanency as to his position Assistant Dept. Manager. Since it is not permanent it may be withdrawn at any time and this is not a violation of the security of tenure guarantee provision of the Constitution. In the case of Amores vs CSC (April 29, 2009), Amores occupied the position of Deputy Director for Hospital Support Services of the Lung Center of the Philippines but in the course of her service she was moreover appointed as Deputy Director. The SC sustained the situation of Petitioner from the office because she was not a CES eligible. The law in fact, as we have mentioned, provides as a rule that a CES eligible may be appointed but as an exception in the absence of an eligible even a non-eligible may be appointed to a CES position in the Government in the interest of public service but again this cannot be said to be permanent, the appointment is only temporary. Where a person/employee lacks the CES eligibility, lets say position in the 3rd level so what is required? CES eligibility and if he does not have CES eligibility more so the rank in the position it cant be said that the appointment is permanent at best it is simply temporary. If one holds a temporary appointment, what is the conclusion? He may be replaced anytime there is CES eligible willing and available. So here she was replaced even without cause as her appointment is only temporary in the absence of CES eligibility on the part of Amores. 2.