11 Domingo Vs DBP

Luis B.
Domingo vs DBP and CSC temporary appointments for a max of 12

GR No. 93355; 7 April 1992 months to all DB personnel in order to fully
implement the reorganization. While on
NATURE: temporary status, they will be assessed on the
Special civil action impugns the resolution of basis of the results of their evaluation.
respondent CSC promulgated on April 10, 4. DBP undertook the evaluation and
1990 in CSC Case No. 473 setting aside its comparative assessment of all its personnel
earlier resolution ofNovember 27, 1989, and under the CSC approved New Performance
affirming the separation of petitioner Luis B. Appraisal System, a peer and control rating
Domingo as Senior Training and Career process which served as an assessment tool
Development Officer of the DBP. of DBP’s screening process.
5. Petitioner Domingo was issued a temporary
FACTS: appointment on January 2, 1987 for a period
1. Petitioner was employed by DBP as of 1 year, which was renewed for another
Senior Training and Career Development period up to November 30, 1988.
on permanent status from February 1979 6. Thereafter, in a memorandum issued by the
to December 1986. Final Review Committee, petitioner got a
2. On December 3, 1986, EO No. 81 (The performance rating of “below average”, by
Revised Charter of DBP) was passed reason of which his appointment was “made
authorizing the reorganization of DBP to lapse”.
including the adoption of new staffing 7. Consequently, petitioner, together with a
pattern to suit the reduced operations certain Evangeline Javier, filed with the CSC a
envisioned. To implement that it is under joint verified complaint against DBP for illegal
Sec. 33 and 34 that: dismissal.
A. Qualified personnel of the Bank may be Contention:

appointed to appropriate positions in the Their dismissal constituted a violation of the
new staffing pattern thereof, and those not CSL against the issuance of temporary
so appointed are deemed separated from appointments to permanent employees, as
the service; well as of their right to security of tenure, and
B. No preferential or priority rights shall be due process.
given to any personnel for appointment to
any position in the new staffing pattern; 8. The CSC issued a resolution appointing Mr.
C. Nor shall any officer or personnel be Domingo and Ms. Javier, Senior Training and
considered as having prior or vested rights Career Development Officer and Research
with respect to retention in the Bank or in Analyst or any such equivalent rank under the
any position as may have been created in staffing pattern of DBP.
its new staffing pattern, even if he should
be the incumbent of a similar position CSC Premises on its Resolution:
therein; - the action of the DBP to issue temporary
D. All those who shall retire from the service appointments order to allow for the
or are separated therefrom on account of maximum flexibility in evaluating the
the reorganization of the Bank under the performance of incumbents is not accord
provisions of this Charter shall be entitled with civil service law rules.
to all gratuities and benefits provided for
- to issue temporary appointment to one who
under existing laws and/or supplementary
retirement plans adopted by and effective has been on permanent status before will
in the Bank. deprive the employee of benefits accorded
permanent employees and will adversely
3. Subsequently, DBP issued a Board affect his security of tenure.
Resolution allowing the issuance of a
9. DBP filed a motion for reconsideration Reorganization in this jurisdiction have
Contentions: been regarded as valid provided they are
-Temporary appointees enjoy the same salary pursued in good faith. As a general rule,
and other benefits corresponding to reorganization is carried out in “good faith” if it
permanent employees. is for the purpose of economy or to make
- No impairment of security of tenure since bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no
the new DBP charter provides “qualified dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation
personnel of the bank may be appointed to actually occurs because the position itself
appropriate positions in the new staffing ceases to exist. And in that case, security of
pattern and those not so appointed are tenure would not be a Chinese wall.
deemed separated from the service;
No less than the Constitution itself in
- Petitioner was evaluated and comparatively
Sec. 16 of Transitory Provisions, together with
assessed under a rating system approved Section 33 and 34 of EO No. 81 and Sec. 9 of
by the respondent commission; the RA No. 6656, support this conclusion with
- No due process denied since petitioner the declaration that all those not so appointed
never appealed his rating or the extension in the implementation of said reorganization
of his temporary appointment unlike those shall be deemed separated from the service
other employees who appealed; with the concomitant recognition of their
entitlement to appropriate separation benefits
10. CSC set aside its questioned resolution, and/or retirement plans of the reorganized
and affirmed the separation of the petitioners government agency.
through its April 10, 1990 resolution.
The facts of this case, particularly the
With premises: evaluation process adopted by DBP, bear out
- the determinative factor for retention, and the existence of good faith in the course of
the separation from the service is the reorganization. As a tool in the assessment
individual performance rating; process, a bank-wide peer and control rating
- While the Commission supports the process was implemented. Under this
process, the peers and supervisors rated the
principle of merit and fitness, and strongly
DBP employees.
protects the security of tenure of civil
service officials and employees which are
The performance rating system used
the essence of careerism in the civil service,
and adopted by DBP was duly approved by
it does not however, sanction the
the Civil Service Commission. Herein
reappointment of said officials and
petitioner was evaluated and comparatively
employees who have fallen short of the
assessed under this approved rating system.
performance necessary in order to maintain
at all times efficiency and effectiveness in
Under Section 27 of PD No. 807, the
the office.
Government is authorized to lay off employees
in case of a reduction due to reorganization.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the reorganization implemented by
Lastly, petitioner failed to invoke the
the DBP is valid - YES
presence of any of the circumstances
2. W/N its implementation violates security of
enumerated under Sec. 2 of RA No. 6656
tenure - NO
which would show or tend to show existence
3. W/N government reorganization can be a
of bad faith in the implementation of the
valid ground to terminate the services of
reorganization.
government employee - YES
Quintessentially, the reorganization
HELD:
having been conducted in accordance with the
mandate of Dario, it was attended by good
faith, ergo, valid. The dismissal herein
petitioner is a removal for cause which,
therefore, does not violate his security of
tenure.

11 Domingo Vs DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Domingo Vs DBP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Domingo Vs DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luis B.

Domingo vs DBP and CSC temporary appointments for a max of 12

A. Qualified personnel of the Bank may be Contention:

You might also like