G.R. No. 138348 . December 9, 2005.
Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Zaalika Mangondaya, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents were municipal employees of Butig, Lanao del Sur, holding permanent appointments issued by then-Mayor Abdulrahman Romato. Following an electoral protest, the COMELEC declared Palawan Amatonding the duly elected mayor, ousting Romato. Upon assuming office, Mayor Amatonding issued a memorandum on December 25, 1993, directing the respondents to report for work and show cause why they should not be removed for failing to report since December 23, 1993. The respondents did not comply. Consequently, on January 31, 1994, Amatonding issued individual termination notices, dropping them from the rolls on grounds of abandonment, unauthorized absences, and defiance of memoranda. The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and backwages before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO).
The CSCRO ruled that the permanently appointed respondents were illegally dismissed, ordering their reinstatement with back wages. This was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and subsequently by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner Municipality, through its new mayor, argued before the Supreme Court that the dismissals were valid due to abandonment and that the appointments were void for being tainted with nepotism, as the appointees were allegedly relatives of former Mayor Romato.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, who held permanent appointments, were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower tribunals’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the nature of a permanent appointment and the proper procedure for dismissing a civil service employee. A permanent appointment confers a vested legal right to the position, removable only for cause as provided by law and after compliance with procedural due process. The grounds cited by Mayor Amatonding—abandonment and unauthorized absence—require a clear and deliberate intent to relinquish the position, which was not established. The mere failure to report after a change in administration, especially following a politically charged electoral protest, does not per se constitute abandonment. The Court found the respondents’ non-compliance with the memorandum was not a definitive act of abandonment but a reaction to the unsettled political climate.
Furthermore, the procedural requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL) under CSC rules were not followed. The termination was effectuated without the proper prior notice and hearing mandated for the removal of a permanent employee. The defense of nepotism, raised belatedly only at the Supreme Court level, cannot be entertained as it is a factual issue requiring evidence not presented in the proceedings below. The appointments, having been attested by the CSC, enjoy the presumption of regularity. Therefore, the dismissal, being without just cause and without due process, was illegal. The order for reinstatement with back wages stands.