THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 226634-44, March 06, 2019
SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review,1 filed by Santiago G. Barcelona, Jr. (petitioner), assailing the Joint Decision2 dated April 30, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated August 30, 2016 of the Sandiganbayan, Third Division in Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0244 to SB-10-CRM-0254. The petition seeks to set aside the Sandiganbayan's Joint Decision and Resolution adjudging the petitioner guilty for eleven (11) cases of violation of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6656 or "An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization."
SB-10-CRM-0244
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Edna A. Abibas, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Edna A. Abibas, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Edna A. Abibas.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0245
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Aurelio N. Pios, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Aurelio N. Pios, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Aurelio N. Pios.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0246
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Eduardo L. Bacaron, who was holding a permanent appointment as Driver II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Eduardo L. Bacaron, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Eduardo L. Bacaron.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0247
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this . Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Emerson Bermejo, who was holding a permanent appointment as Driver in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Emerson Bermejo, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Emerson Bermejo.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0248
That sometime, in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Noel C. Dueñas, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Noel C. Dueñas, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Noel C. Dueñas.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0249
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Silva P. Bacaron, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Silva P. Bacaron, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Silva P. Bacaron.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0250
That sometime, in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Rodolfo C. Pritos, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Rodolfo C. Pritos, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Rodolfo C. Pritos.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0251
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Rodolfo B. Api, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Rodolfo B. Api, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Rodolfo B. Api.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-[0252]
That sometime1 in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Constantino Dueñas, who was holding a permanent appointment as Labor Foreman in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Constantino Dueñas, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Constantino Dueñas.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0253
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Amelia B. Villa, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Amelia B. Villa, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Amelia B. Villa.
CONTRARY TO LAW.SB-10-CRM-0254
That sometime in the year 2002, in the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of the City of Escalante, Province of Negros Occidental, in such capacity and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of his public position, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally dismiss from the service one Norma D. Jose, who was holding a permanent appointment as Utility Worker II in the City Government of Escalante City, without a valid cause and without due notice and hearing as a result of reorganization, and despite demand or claim for him to reinstate or reappoint said Norma D. Jose, the said accused refused, and continued to refuse, to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Norma D. Jose.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WHEREFORE, premised (sic) considered, in Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0244 up to SB-10-CRM-0254, the accused SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., is hereby found GUILTY in each of the eleven (11) cases herein. The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) IN EACH OF THE ELEVEN (11) CASES and to suffer PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD OFFICE.The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution15 dated August 30, 2016, viz.:
SO ORDERED.14 (Emphases in the original)
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.16 (Emphases in the original)
No new employees shall be taken in until all permanent officers and employees have been appointed, including temporary and casual employees who possess the necessary qualification requirements, among which is the appropriate civil service eligibility, for permanent appointment to positions in the approved staffing pattern, in case there are still positions to be filled, unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature.20 (Emphasis Ours)Further, the Court observes badges of bad faith on the part of the petitioner when he imputed incompetence and unfitness to work on the 11 terminated private complainants; hence, the disapproval of their applications for reassignment. If the petitioner and his Placement Committee insist on the non-qualification of these employees as a result of a series of evaluations and background checks, then why were these performance evaluations not conducted prior to the reorganization? The absence of a written evaluation report casts doubt on the legality of the removal procedure of these 11 employees.
Prosecutor Padaca:As correctly pointed out by the private complainants, prior notice is procedurally explained under Sections 10 and 15 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6656, viz.:
Q: You said in your letter May 7, 2002 that "we were informed that our employment with the City Government of Escalante was to be terminated because our positions were abolished." My question is, who informed you?
A: One of my co-workers, ma'am.
Q: How did they inform you, in writing or (in) verbal?
A: Verbal, ma'am.
Pros. Padaca:
Q: You testified that you were dropped from the payroll, when was that?
A: First week of June 2002.
Q: When was the last time that you received your salary?
A: May 31, 2002.
Q: Who if any informed you that you will be dropped from the payroll?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: How did the management inform you that you would be dropped from the payroll?
A: During the first week of June when I went to get my salary, and I found out that my name is no longer listed in the payroll.
x x x x
Prosecutor Padaca:
Q: Mr. Witness, why did you file a letter appeal to the Civil Service Commission, Field Office?
A: We are all terminated and my name was no longer in the payroll.22 (Citations omitted)
Section 10. Notice and Hearing.Clearly, the petitioner failed to observe due process when the Placement Committee violated the constitutional rights of the 11 employees to security of tenure. The law is emphatic. Section 2 of R.A. No. 6656 cites certain circumstances showing bad faith in the removal of employees as a result of any reorganization:24
1. Officers and employees who upon evaluation and assessment will be laid off for any of the valid causes as provided for in these rules, shall be duly notified thereof and shall be given opportunity to present their side to assure utmost objectivity and impartiality. The hearing need not adhere to the technical rules in judicial proceedings.
x x x x
Section 15. Notice of Non-Appointment
Officers and employees laid off as a result of reorganization shall be given written notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of the termination of their service.23
Sec. 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or some of the following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved party:Moreover, Section 3 of the same law provides for the order of removal of employees as follows:
a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned; b) Where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created; c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same function as the original offices; e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring Ours)
Sec. 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization, the following order of removal shall be followed:The Court notes that despite the CSC's ruling of reinstatement, the petitioner insisted on defying said order of reinstatement and placement of the 11 employees. Such act on the part of the petitioner absolutely violates the very spirit of R.A. No. 6656. Moreover, such disobedience is tantamount to bad faith.
(a) Casual employees with less than five (5) years of government service;
(b) Casual employees with five (5) years or more of government service;
(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; and
(d) Employees holding permanent appointments: Provided, that those in the same category as enumerated above, who are least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall be laid first, length of service notwithstanding.
Sec. 4. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former positions or in case there are not enough comparable positions, to positions next lower in rank.Doctrine of qualified political agency makes the petitioner liable for violation of R.A. No. 6656.
No new employees shall be taken until all permanent officers and employees have been appointed, including temporary and casual employees who possess the necessary qualification requirements, among which is the appropriate civil service eligibility, for permanent appointment to positions in the approved staffing pattern, in case there are still positions to be filled, unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
It is an undeniable fact that the dismissed employees who were holding such positions as foremen, watchmen and drivers, suffered the uncertainties of the unemployed when they were plucked out of their positions. That not all of them testified as to the extent of damages they sustained on account of their separation from their government jobs; cannot be used as a defense by the petitioners. Suffice it to state that considering the positions they were holding, the dismissed employees concerned belong to a low-salaried group, who, if deprived of wages would generally incur considerable economic hardships.30What transpired in the City of Escalante upon reorganization is similar to a mere window dressing as enunciated in the case of Cruz, et al. v. Hon. Primicias, et al.,31 as a "subterfuge resorted to for disguising an illegal removal of permanent civil service employees."32 The employees are terminated without being given reasons for their dismissal. Only the appointing authority knows why employees are no longer reappointed.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires (now a Retired Justice of this Court), with Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, concurring; id. at 34-52.
3 Id. at 53-57.
4 AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF ESCALANTE. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL INTO A COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF ESCALANTE.
5Rollo, pp. 34-40.
6 Id. at 40.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 40-41.
9 Id. at 41.
10 Id.
11 Rendered by Assistant Commissioner Jesse J. Caberoy; id. at 158-177.
12 Id. at 42.
13 Id. at 34-52.
14 Id. at 51.
15 Id. at 53-57
16 Id. at 57.
17Mendoza v. Hon. Quisumbing, 264 Phil. 471, 493 (1990).
18 G.R. No. 180845, November 22, 2017.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21Rollo, p. 205.
22 Id. at 206.
23 Id. at 205, citing CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1988.
24Mayor Pan v. Peña, 598 Phil. 781, 790-791 (2009).
25Rollo, pp. 227.
26KBMBPM v. Hon. Dominguez, 282 Phil. 105, 124 (1992).
27 Supra note 18, citing Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission, 274 Phil. 381, 387-388 (1991).
28Dario v. Mison, 257 Phil. 84, 130-131 (1989).
29 232 Phil. 461 (1987).
30 Id. at 469.
31 132 Phil. 467 (1968).
32 Id. at 472.