Canonizado vs Aguirre replaced with another office vested with similar functions,
GR No. 133132; 25 January 2000 the abolition is a legal nullity. Thus, in U.P. Board of
FACTS:
Petitioners were duly appointed Commissioners of the
National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) - created by
virtue of RA 6975. Upon the passing of the amendatory law,
RA 8851, “Philippine National Police Reform and
Reorganization Act of 1998”, declared that the terms of the
current Commissioners were deemed as expired upon its
effectivity.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Secs. 4 and 8 of
RA 8551. Petitioners argue that their removal from office by
virtue of Section 8 of RA 8551 violates their constitutionality
guaranteed right to security of tenure.
Public respondents insist that express declaration in Sec.8
of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners offices are deemed
expired discloses legislative intent to impliedly abolish the
NAPOLCOM created under RA 6975 pursuant to a bona
fide reorganization. Petitioners posit the theory that the
abolition of petitioners offices was a result of a
reorganization of the NAPOLCOM allegedly effected by RA
8551.
ISSUE:
1. W/N petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid
abolition of their office by Congress
HELD:
According to the Supreme Court, the petitioners
herein were members of the civil service and as such they
cannot be removed or suspended from office, except for
cause provided by law. The Supreme Court granted the
petition, but only to the extent of declaring Section 8 of RA
8551 unconstitutional for being violative of the petitioners'
right to security of tenure. The removal from office as a
result of the application of such unconstitutional provision
of law and the appointment in their stead was, therefore,
null and void. Petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and
to the payment of full backwages to be reckoned from the
date they were removed from office.
NOTES:
CREATION AND ABOLITION OF OFFICE: REQUISITES.
The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a
legislative function. It is acknowledged that Congress may
abolish any office it creates without impairing the officer's
right to continue in the position held and that such power
may be exercised for various reasons, such as the lack of
funds or in the interest of economy. However, in order for
the abolition to be valid, it must be made in good faith, not
for political or personal reasons, or in order to circumvent
the constitutional security of tenure of civil service
employees.
EFFECT. An abolition of office connotes an intention to do
away with such office wholly and permanently, as the word
"abolished" denotes. Where one office is abolished and
Regents vs. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 (1991), the Court said:
It is true that a valid and bona fide abolition of an office
denies to the incumbent the right to security of tenure. [De
la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 (1982)] However, in this
case, the renaming and restructuring of the PGH and its
component units cannot give rise to a valid and bona fide
abolition of the position of PGH Director. This is because
where the abolished o=ce and the offices created in its
place have similar functions, the abolition lacks good faith.
[Jose L. Guerrero vs. Hon. Antonio V. Arizabal, G.R. No.
81928, June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 108 (1990)] We hereby
apply the principle enunciated in Cesar Z. Dario vs. Hon.
Salvador M. Mison [176 SCRA 84 (1989)] that abolition
which merely changes the nomenclature of positions is
invalid and does not result in the removal of the incumbent.
The above notwithstanding, and assuming that the
abolition of the position of the PGH Director and the
creation of a UP-PGH Medical Center Director are valid,
the removal of the incumbent is still not justified for the
reason that the duties and functions of the two positions are
basically the same. . . .
This was also the Court's ruling in Guerrero vs. Arizabal,
186 SCRA 108 (1990), wherein it
was declared that the substantial identity in the functions
between the two offices was indicia of bad faith in the
removal of petitioner pursuant to a reorganization.
POWER OF CONTROL. Control means
"the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what
a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that
of the latter." On the other hand, to supervise is to oversee,
to have oversight of, to superintend the execution of or the
performance of a thing, or the movements or work of a
person, to inspect with authority; it is the power or authority
of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their
duties. Thus, the power of control necessarily
encompasses the power of supervision and adding the
phrase "operational supervision” under the powers of the
NAPOLCOM would not bring about a substantial change in
its functions so as to arrive at the conclusion that a
completely new office has been created.
REORGANIZATION: REQUISITES. Reorganization takes
place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of
government offices or units therein, including the lines of
control, authority and responsibility between them. It
involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices,
or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
functions. Naturally, it may result in the loss of one's
position through removal or abolition of an office. However,
for a reorganization to be valid, it must also pass the test of
good faith, laid down in Dario vs. Mison: . . . As a general
rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for
the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more
efficient.