EN BANC
G.R. No. 194529, August 06, 2019
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. FRAULEIN CABANBAN CABANAG AND JESUS T. PANAL, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
Under review is the decision promulgated on November 17, 2010,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) held the petitioner liable for illegal dismissal of the respondents, and ordered it to pay them backwages and other benefits corresponding to the period from March 1, 2003 until September 14, 2007, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the petition is Granted. The Decision dated March 30, 2007 of the Civil Service Commission is hereby Modified, in that the Petitioners were illegally dismissed as the NPB Resolutions Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 which were relied upon by the Respondent in their reorganization program were subsequently declared void by the Supreme Court. Petitioners are entitled to backwages and other benefits, from the date they were illegally dismissed up to September 14, 2007.
Dear Ms. Cabanag and Mr. Panal,The respondents ultimately filed against the petitioner a complaint for illegal dismissal in the Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) in Cebu City.
This has reference to your letter dated March 6, 2003 regarding your inquiry of not being included in the Chemical Laboratory Work Schedule for March 2003. Allow us to respond to your concerns point-by-point as enumerated in your letter, to wit:
x x x x
UNEXPECTED HAVING BEEN IN THE SERVICE FOR A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME WITH GOOD PERFORMANCE
Let it be reiterated that the position of Principal Chemist Analyst C had been reduced from eight to only four in the new T.O. With our re-hiring policy that all positions are contestable, we expect numerous applicants in all positions.
Assuming that incumbents are given the highest priority in re-hiring, this means that they have to be force-ranked on the basis of education, experience, performance and behavioral traits. The Personnel Selection Committee considered fairly the qualifications of all the applicants. Regrettably, as the new T.O. allowed, only four of the eight incumbents were chosen by the selection board and you are among the ones not chosen. Let it be said, as it is said many times, that in cases where all applicants met the minimum requirements, the behavioral trait of the employee played a very vital role.9
[Consistent with the ruling of the Commission in Jimenez, et. al. (CSC Resolution No. 030338 dated March 12, 2003), it was held that:On motion for reconsideration, however, the CSC reversed itself, and declared instead that although the respondents' termination was valid under the reorganization, they should have been preferred in the appointment of the candidates for the position of Principal Chemist C, to wit:"Reorganization as a general rule, is deemed a valid cause for separation. This flows from the diction that in cases of reorganization, positions are deemed abolished. In that event, no dismissal or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist."In this particular case, after the implementation of the EPIRA Law NPC has a new table of organization wherein the positions are considered new and vacant. No former NPC employee can claim vested right to new positions. It is the NPC Board who has the power "to adapt and set guidelines for the employment of personnel on the basis of merit, technical competence, and moral character."
x x x x
"Generally speaking, under the aegis of a bonafide Reorganization as what transpired in the present controversy, all existing positions are deemed abolished. All incumbents are separated from the service as a consequence thereof." x x x
Moreover, the Commission cannot interfere in the discretionary power of the appointing authority. As held in the case of Lapinid vs. CSC, G.R. No. 96298 (1991), the Supreme Court ruled as follows:"Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot compel. While the act of appointment may in proper case be the subject of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee taking into account the totality of his justifications including those abstract qualities that define his personality is the prerogative of the appointing authority."Further, the EPIRA Act provides grounds for legal termination of services of NPC officials and employees. It is thus clear that the appellants have no preferential right over the positions they previously held.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of Fraulein C. Cabanag and Jesus T. Panal from the decision of NAPOCOR President Rogelio M. Murga upholding their non-appointment to the position of Principal Chemists Analyst C is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.12
On the issue of whether NPC complied with the civil service rules and regulations with regard to the appointment of Jonah Carmen L. Facturan, Marietta S. Roxas, Cromwell M. Bulandres and Ana Jane Somoza, Principal Chemists C, a review of the qualification standard for the said position is in order.Not satisfied, the respondents still appealed to the CA, to plead that the CSC should have further ordered their reinstatement in view of the illegality of their termination.14
The approved Revised NPC Qualification Standard (QS) provides the following qualifications for the position of Principal Chemist C:The above QS specifically requires a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry and RA 1080 (Chemistry) eligibility for appointment as Principal Chemist C since the duties of the said position constitute the practice of Chemistry which is regulated by Republic Act No. 754.
"Education :Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry "Experience :3 years relevant experience "Training :16 hours of relevant training "Eligibility :RA1080"
Applicable is Item No. 5, Part V of the Revised Policies on Qualification Standards which provides as follows:"5. Eligibilities resulting from passing the bar/board examinations shall be required for appointment to positions the duties of which constitute the practice of profession(s) regulated by the Philippine BAR/Board Laws."Applying the above QS in relation to Item No. 5, Part V of the Revised Policies on Qualification Standards, it is necessary that the appointee to Principal Chemist C position at NPC should be a licensed chemist.
Movants alleged that they are licensed chemists and meet the prescribed qualifications for Principal Chemist C. They further alleged that of the four (4) appointees to the position of Principal Chemist C at the PGPP, only Somoza is a licensed chemist and the rest (Jonah Carmen L. Facturan, Marietta S. Roxas, and Cromwell M. Bulandres) are chemical engineers. These allegations are not disputed by NPC. Hence, they are presumed to be correct. Consequently, of the four (4) above-mentioned appointments to Principal Chemist C position at Palinpinon Geothermal Power Plant, only the appointment of Somoza was in accord with Civil Service law and rules.
Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 33 of the Implementing Rules of the EPIRA Law, where there are two or more qualified former NPC personnel applying for the same position, they enjoy the same preference and the appointing authority is given wide latitude of discretion in choosing who among them shall be appointed. Fundamental is the rule that appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in whom it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee shall possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. x x x
However, where the appointee lacks any of the qualifications required by law as when he does not possess the appropriate civil service eligibility, the appointing authority abused the exercise of his discretion in issuing the appointment, and the same is reviewable by the Commission or any of its regional/field offices, making the abuse subject to correction.
Hence, in the instance case, Cabanag and Panal who applied for the position of Principal Chemist C and to which they qualified, enjoy preference in appointment to said position.
WHEREFORE, this Office hereby sets aside its Decision dated October 3, 2005 and finds Fraulein C. Cabanag and Jesus T. Panal, former Principal Chemists Analyst C (SG-13), Palinpinon Geothermal Power Plant, qualified for appointment to the position of Principal Chemist C at Palinpinon Geothermal Power Plant. Hence, they should be given preference in appointment to said position pursuant to Section 5, Rule 33 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9136.13
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS' TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT WAS ILLEGAL ON THE BASIS OF THE RULING IN NPC DAMA, ET. AL. v. NPCThe petitioner claims that the implementation of the nullified NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 and NPB Resolution No. 2002-125 had only resulted in the separation from the service of 16 top level executives; that on January 22, 2003, its NBP passed NPB Resolution No. 2003-11 to amend NBP Resolution No. 2002-124 by approving the revised 2003 NPC Restructuring Timetable; that NPB Resolution No. 2003-11 mandated that the legal separation of the employees should only take place after the conclusion of the selection of applicants to fill the positions under the new TO; that NPB Resolution No. 2003-12, which was also passed on the same date as NPB Resolution No. 2003-11, approved the appointments of the 16 executives based on the revised TO effective January 31, 2003 pursuant to NPB Resolution No. 2002-124; that NPC-DAMA did not nullify NPB Resolution No. 2003-11, which the NBP ratified through the adoption of NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 if only to erase doubts as to the validity of the latter resolution; and that, in any event, the pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration in NPC-DAMA, there could not be any pronouncement to the effect that the implementation of NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 and NPB Resolution No.2002-125 extended to the respondents.18
We conclude that the final September 26, 2006 Decision and September 17, 2008 Resolution cover the separation from employment of all NPC employees. As we explained in the final September 17, 2008 Resolution, the logical and necessary consequence of the nullification of NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 was the illegality of the dismissal of the NPC employees, since their separation from employment stemmed from these nullified NPB resolutions. Our final rulings could not have intended any other meaning. All these pleadings filed prior to our final rulings indicate that the injunction case affected all NPC employees.Hence, we hereby declare that the respondents' termination was by virtue of said resolutions. In the Court's resolution promulgated on December 2, 2009 in NPC-DAMA,22 we expressly dealt with the effective dates of termination of the affected NPC employees for purposes of computing their backwages and other monetary benefits, to wit:
x x x x
The records show that the petition was a class suit filed in behalf of three thousand NPC employees, more or less, affected by the nullified NPB resolutions. The records further show that the pleadings filed by the NPC bore its admission that the nullified NPB resolutions covered the separation of all NPC personnel. If it had been otherwise, the NPC would not have claimed a huge amount of monetary liability if the subject NPB resolutions had to be nullified. The NPC claimed that its monetary liability under the Court's final ruling would amount to P4,701,354,073.00 - an amount that would cover the separation package of more employees than the 16 officials that the NPC claimed.21
[A]s regards their right to reinstatement, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, pursuant to a validly approved Separation Program, plus backwages, wage adjustments, and other benefits, the same shall be computed from the date of legal termination as stated in NPC Circular No. 2003-09, to wit:Based on the categories of the separated employees, the respondents herein were illegally terminated at the close of office hours on February 28, 2003. Accordingly, the respondents are entitled to the judgment awards set forth in the September 17, 2008 Resolution24 promulgated in NPC-DAMA.a) The legal termination of key officials, i.e., the Corporate Secretary, Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents who were appointed under NP Board Resolution No. 2003-12, shall be at the close of office hours of January 31, 2003.but deducting therefrom the amount of separation benefits which they previously received under the null NPB Resolutions.23 (bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
b) The legal termination of personnel who availed of the early leavers' scheme shall be on the last day of service in NPC but not beyond January 15, 2003.
c) The legal termination of personnel who were no longer employed in NPC after June 26, 2001 shall be the actual separation in NPC.
d) For all other NPC personnel, their legal termination shall be at the close of office hours/shift schedule of February 28, 2003.
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 46-54; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
2 Respondent Panal died on September 22, 2011 (rollo, p. 186), and was substituted by his siblings Pastora P. Pialago, Jose Silverio T. Panal and Gregoria P. Sanico (rollo, pp 209-210).
3Rollo, p. 47.
4 Entitled, Guidelines on the Separation Program of the NPC and the Selection and Placement of Personnel in the NPC Table of Organization.
5Rollo, p. 47.
6 Id. at 101.
7 Id. at 64-68.
8 Id. at 65.
9 Id. at 69-70.
10 Id. at 48.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 75-76.
13 Id. at 94-95.
14 Id. at 49.
15 Supra note 1.
16 G.R. No. 156208, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 138.
17Rollo, pp. 53-54.
18 Id. at 20-29.
19 Id. at 133-134, 219-220.
20 Id. at 183-184.
21 G.R. No. 156208,727 SCRA 363, at 399-401.
22 G.R. No. 156208, 606 SCRA 409.
23 Id. at 432-433.
24 G.R. No. 156208, 565 SCRA 417. In the said Resolution, the Court recognized the dismissed employees' right to reinstatement, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, pursuant to a validly approved Separation Program; plus backwages, wage adjustments, and other benefits accruing from January 31, 2003 to the date of their reinstatement or payment of separation pay, but deducting therefrom the amount of separation benefits which they may have previously received under the nullified NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 and NPB Resolution No. 2002-125.
25 Id. at 434.
26 Id.
27Aquino v. Casabar, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015, 748 SCRA 181.
28 Literally, "as much as he deserves."
29National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 60, 96-97.
30Orocio v. Anguluan, G.R. Nos. 179892-93, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 531, 551-552.
31 Atty. Cornelio filed his motion for withdrawal as counsel for respondent Fraulein Cabanban on November 21, 2011 (rollo, pp. 111-112), which the Court granted through the resolution promulgated on June 19, 2012 (rollo, p. 176).
32 Art. 111. Attorney's fees.
a. In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
b. It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney's fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.