Article IX, Sec 2 (1)

MIRANDA vs. CARREON, et. al

FACTS:
In the early part of 1988, Vice Mayor Amelita Navarro, while
serving as Acting Mayor of the City of Santiago because of the suspension of
Mayor Jose Miranda, appointed respondents to various permanent positions
in the city government and which appointments were based on the
evaluation made by the City Personnel Selection and Promotion Board (PSPB)
pursuant to RA 7160.
However, when Mayor Miranda resumed his office on March 5, 1998, he
formed a three-man special performance audit team, to conduct a personnel
evaluation audit to those who were screened by the PSPB including
respondents hereof. After which, the audit submitted a report stating that
respondents were found wanting in their performance. Thus, on June 10,
1998, three months after, Mayor Miranda issued an order terminating
respondents services effective June 15, 1998 because they performed
poorly during the probationary period.
Respondents appealed to the CSC , contending that being employees on
probation, they can be dismissed from the service on the ground of poor
performance only after their probationary period of six months, not after
three (3) months. They also denied that an evaluation on their performance
was conducted, hence, their dismissal from the service violated their right to
due process.
Thereafter, CSC issued a Resolution reversing the order of Mayor Miranda
and ordering that the respondents be reinstated to their former positions
with payment of back wages. This was appealed by petitioner to the CA and
which the CA rendered a Decision affirming in toto the CSC Resolution.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUES:
a. Whether the CSC erred in its decision to reinstate respondents
and pay back wages.
b. Whether respondents were denied of due process .
c. Whether petitioner has legal personality to file petition.
RESOLUTION: a. NO. The Constitution provides that no officer or
employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for
cause provided by law. Under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a
government officer or employee may be removed from the service on two (2)
grounds:

(1) unsatisfactory conduct and

(2) want of capacity.

While the Code does not define and delineate the concepts of these two
grounds, however, the Civil Service Law (Presidential Decree No. 807, as
amended) provides specific grounds for dismissing a government officer or
employee from the service. Among these grounds are inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties. In the case at bar,
respondents were dismissed on the ground of poor performance. Poor
performance falls within the concept of inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties which, as earlier mentioned, are grounds for
dismissing a government official or employee from the service.

But inefficiency or incompetence can only be determined after the passage

of sufficient time, hence, the probationary period of six (6) months for the
respondents. Indeed, to be able to gauge whether a subordinate is inefficient
or incompetent requires enough time on the part of his immediate superior
within which to observe his performance. This condition, however, was not
observed in this case. As aptly stated by the CSC, it is quite improbable that
Mayor Jose Miranda could finally determine the performance of respondents
for only the first three months of the probationary period.

b. YES. Respondents vehemently assert that they were never notified

in writing regarding the status of their performance, neither were they
warned that they will be dismissed from the service should they fail to
improve their performance. Significantly, petitioner did not refute
respondents assertion. The records show that what respondents received
was only the termination order from Mayor Jose Miranda. Obviously,
respondents right to due process was violated.

c. NO. The Court held that petitioner, not being a real party in interest,
has no legal personality to file this petition. Besides, his motion for

reconsideration was validly withdrawn by the incumbent Mayor. Even

assuming he is a real party in interest, we see no reason to disturb the
findings of both the CSC and the Court of Appeals. The reinstatement of
respondents who, unfortunately, were victims of political bickerings, is in
order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated

May 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 36997 is AFFIRMED.