Aldovino v Alunan III [G.R. No.

102232] (230 SCRA 825) 9

March, 1994
Facts:
The petitioners herein were affected by reorganizing of Ministry of
Tourism as
provided in Section 29 of Executive Order No. 120 which took effect on
January 30,
1987. The Executive Order provides that incumbents whose positions
are not included in the new
position structure and staffing pattern or who are not reappointed are
deemed separated
from the service.
Pursuant to this, the Department of Tourism (DOT, formerly the
Ministry of Tourism) issued various office orders and memoranda
declaring all positions
thereat vacant.
To that effect, it lead to the separation of many of its employees
including
the petitioners. The court had previously decided similar cases of
Mandani, Abrogar and
Arnaldo.
The petitioners and intervenors claimed that they should not be
deprived of the
relief granted to their former co-employees plead for reinstatement
without the loss of
seniority rights.
Furthermore, they claimed for back salaries will be computed under the
new staffing pattern from dates of their invalid termination at rates not
lower than their
former salaries.
Iddue:
Whether or not the petitioners and intervenors must be reinstated and
paid of their back
wages.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that herein petitioners are reinstated
immediately to
their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with back
salaries computed
under new staffing pattern from the dates of their invalid dismissal at
rates not lower than
their former salaries but not to exceed a period of 5 years with several
provisions

Having found out that the Executive Order is unconstitutional, thus

dismissal of the employees is
also unconstitutional. The courts declared its total nullity. An
unconstitutional act is not a
law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection.
In legal contemplation, it is inoperative as if it had not been passed. It
is therefore stricken from
the statute books and considered never to have existed at all. All
persons are bound by the
declaration of unconstitutionality which means that no one may
thereafter invoke it nor
may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. It is as if
the intervenors were
never served their termination orders and, consequently, were never
separated from the
service. Whenever the courts declared an administrative official to
have acted in unlawful
manner, that official must undo the harmful effects of his illegal act
and to accord to the
aggrieved parties restoration or restitution in good faith to make up for
the deprivations
which may have suffered because of his act.