Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Domingo Vs DBP
Domingo Vs DBP
FACTS: Petitioner was employed by DBP as Senior On April 10, 1990, CSC rendered the questioned
Training and Career Development Officer on permanent resolution setting aside its previous decision and affirming
status from 1979 to December 1986. With the passage of the separation of herein petitioner. Hence this petition.
E.O. No. 81 and Board Resolution No. 304-87, DBP
undertook the evaluation and comparative assessment of
all its personnel under the CSC approved New ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the reorganization
Performance Appraisal System, a peer and control rating implemented by DBP is valid as it violates petitioner's
process which served as an assessment tool of DBP's right to security of tenure; and (2) Whether or not the
screening process. petitioner was deprived of due process.
Petitioner Domingo was issued a temporary appointment RULING: (1) Yes, the reorganization implemented by the
on January 2, 1987 for a period of one (1) year, which was DBP is valid. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried
renewed for another period up to November 30, 1988. out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to
Thereafter, in a memorandum dated November 23, 1988 make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no
issued by the Final Review Committee, petitioner got a dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation actually
performance rating of "below average," by reason of which occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in
his appointment was "made to lapse." that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall.
Consequently, petitioner filed with the CSC a verified No less than the Constitution itself in Section 16 of the
complaint against DBP for illegal dismissal. He alleged Transitory Provisions, together with Sections 33 and 34 of
that his dismissal constituted a violation of the Civil Executive Order No. 81 and Section 9 of Republic Act No.
Service Law against the issuance of temporary 6656, support this conclusion with the declaration that all
appointments to permanent employees, as well as of his those not so appointed in the implementation of said
right to security of tenure and due process. reorganization shall be deemed separated from the
service with the concomitant recognition of their
On November 27, 1989, CSC issued a resolution directing
entitlement to appropriate separation benefits and/or
the reappointment of Mr. Domingo as Senior Training and
retirement plans of the reorganized government agency.
Career Development Officer or any such equivalent rank
under the staffing pattern of DBP. The order for
reappointment was premised on the findings of the CSC Thus, it can safely be concluded that indeed the
that the action of the DBP to issue temporary reorganization was attended by good faith, ergo, valid.
appointments to all DBP personnel in order to allow for the The dismissal of herein petitioner is a removal for cause
maximum flexibility in evaluating the performance of which, therefore, does not violate his security of tenure.
incumbents is not in accord with civil service law rules.
Accordingly, to issue a temporary appointment to one who
has been on permanent status before will deprive the (2) Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 provides that "no
employee of benefits accorded to permanent employees officer or employee in the career service shall be removed
and will adversely affect his security of tenure." except for a valid cause and after due notice and hearing."
There is no question that while dismissal due to a bona
fide reorganization is recognized as a valid cause, this
DBP filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, does not justify a detraction from the mandatory
1989 alleging that the issuance of temporary requirement of notice and hearing. However, it is equally
appointments to all the DBP employees was purely an true and it is a basic rule of due process that "what the law
interim arrangement; that in spite of the temporary prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the
appointment, they continued to enjoy the salary, absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be
allowances and other benefits corresponding to heard." There is no violation of procedural due process
permanent employees; that there can be no impairment of even where no hearing was conducted for as long as the
herein petitioner's security of tenure since the new DBP party was given a chance to present his evidence and
charter expressly provides that "qualified personnel of the defend himself.
bank may be appointed to appropriate positions in the new
staffing pattern and those not so appointed are deemed
separated from the service;" that petitioner was evaluated The records show that petitioner, although several
and comparatively assessed under a rating system appeals were received by the Final Review Committee
approved by the respondent commission; and that from other employees similarly situated, never appealed
petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process of his rating or the extension of his temporary appointment
law considering that, although several appeals were although he was advised to do so by his direct supervisor.
received by the Final Review Committee from other Consequently, petitioner cannot, by his own inaction,
employees similarly situated, herein petitioner never legally claim that he was denied due process of law
appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary