Constitutionality of RA 6715 SECTION 35 was assailed by 5 December 22, 1989 without approving their appointments, said An implied abolition
An implied abolition would happen if there was an irreconcilable
special civil actions, insofar as it declares vacant “all positions of
the Commissioners, Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters
of the NLRC” and operates to remove the incumbents upon the
appointment and qualification of their successors.
First case:
G.R. No. 87211: Jovencio Mayor; and Intervenors
Lourdes A. Sales and Ricardo Olairez
Jovencio Ll. Mayor, a member of the Philippine Bar for fifteen (15)
years, was appointed Labor Arbiter in 1986 after he had,
according to him, met the prescribed qualifications and passed "a
rigid screening process out of fear he filed a case but he was
eventually reappointed as Labor Arbiter on March 8, 1990. Hence,
as he himself says, the case became moot as to him.
Second case
G.R. No. 90044; Pascual Y Reyes; and Intervenor Eugenio L
Sagmit, Jr.
Both Reyes and Sagmit were informed that they had been
separated from employment upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715,
pursuant to a Memorandum-Order issued by then Secretary of
Labor Franklin Drilon on August 17, 1989 to the effect that the
offices of Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director had
been abolished by Section 35, in relation to Section 5 of said Act,
and "their functions transferred to the Chairman, aided by the
Executive Clerk.
Reyes moved for reconsideration on August 29, 1989, but when
no action was allegedly taken thereon, he instituted the action at
bar, G.R. No. 90044. Sagmit was afterwards granted leave to
intervene in the action
Third case
President extended to Encarnacion, Lucas and Dulay new
appointments as Commissioners of the NLRC despite the fact
that, according to them, they had not been served with notice of
the termination of their services as incumbent commissioners,
and no vacancy existed in their positions. Their new appointments
were submitted to Congress, but since Congress adjourned on
appointments became functus officio. inconsistency between the nature, duties and functions of the
petitioner’s offices under the old rules and those under the new
Fourth case law.
G.R. No. 91730: Conrado Maglaya RA 6715 did not abolish the NLRC or change its essential
character as a supervisory and adjudicatory body. The
He complains that he was effectively removed from his position as amendments conferred a greater measure of autonomy, required
a result of the designation of the full complement of
Commissioners in and to all Five Divisions of the NLRC by that the membership be drawn from tripartite sectors, changed the
Administrative Order No. 161 dated November 18, 1989, issued official stations of the Commissions divisions, and prescribed
by Labor Secretary Drilon. higher or other qualifications for the positions of Commissioner
(this one should operate only prospectively, plus the petitioners
Fifth case
asserted without dispute that they did possess these new
G.R. No. 94518: Rolando D. Gambito qualifications) - none of the amendments revised the nature,
powers and duties of the NLRC in such a way that the Act
Rolando Gambito passed the bar examinations in 1971, joined impliedly abolished the offices of the commissioners and created
the Government service in 1974, serving for sixteen years in the
others in its place.
Department of Health, and as Labor Arbiter in the Department of
Labor and Employment from October, 1986. He was not included
in the list of newly appointed Labor Arbiters released on March 8, As far as the Labor Arbiters were concerned, there were no
1990; and his attempt to obtain a recosideration of his exclusion
essential inconsistencies between their old functions and the RA
therefrom and bring about his reinstatement as Labor Arbiter was
unavailing. 6715. Their constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure cannot
be defeated by a provision for higher or other qualifications than
ISSUE: W/N an express or implied abolition of the petitioner’s what was prescribed by the old law since, again, these new
offices in the NLRC, may be sustained qualifications should operate prospectively AND there is also no
showing here that the petitioning Arbiters do not qualify under the
Ruling: new law.
Security of tenure is a protected right under the Constitution. “No
officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or The SC decided that section 35 was not unconstitutional but the
suspended except for cause provided by law.” So the removal of the commissioners, executive director, deputy
Commissioners had the right to remain in office until the executive director and labor arbiters were deemed
expiration of the terms for which they had been appointed unless
removed “for cause provided by law”. Same goes with the unconstitutional and void.
Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director and Labor
Arbiters, who had the right to remain in their positions until age of
compulsory retirement unless removed “for cause provided by
law”.
Abolition is NOT the same as declaring the office vacant. While it
is the prerogative of legislature to abolish certain offices, it can’t
just pronounce the offices vacant and remove the occupants of
the offices. Such an act would constitute, on its face, an
infringement of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure
and it will have to be struck down.