LARIN VS. EXECUTVE SECRETARY
FACTS:
Petitioner Aquilino Larin is the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and he also appears to be a co- accused in two criminal cases for violating Section 268(4) of the National Internal Revenue Code and Section 3 of R.A. 3019. Subsequently petitioner was convicted and this was reported to the President, the then Senior Deputy Executive Secretary by the authority of the president issued Memo order 164 creating an executive committee to investigate the administrative charges.
The committee required that petitioner filed a position paper with regard to the charges against him, the petitioner complied, and however his statement was that he cannot comment on the merits of the case for fear of being cited in contempt by the court. Petitioner also alleged that the committee doesn’t have any jurisdiction over his person, that the case cannot be validly filed without violating res judicata, his rights against double jeopardy and lastly to proceed with the investigation would be redundant and oppressive against him. While all this is pending, the president issued an order for the streamlining of BIR, in which case the office of the petitioner was abolished by the order. His office being abolished, the petitioner was not reinstated as an assistant commissioner of BIR, instead another Administrative order was issued in which it stated that he is being dismissed for being guilty of grave misconduct in connection to the criminal cases filed against him.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was valid or not. a. Who has the power to discipline the petitioner b. Was due process observed c. What is the effect of the petitioners acquittal in the criminal case d. Does the president have the power to reorganize BIR e. Was the reorganization done in bad faith.
HELD:
The court ruled that the office of the petitioner falls under the category of Career Executive Service, which is appointed by the president and being a presidential appointee, it follows that the president have the power to discipline the petitioner. Despite the fact that the constitution grants the president the power to appoint and the inherent power to remove, such power is not without limit. Under the Administrative code of 1987, career services are characterized to have security of tenure, therefore the petitioner is protected from being willfully removed by the president, the only way that the petitioner can be validly removed is for a valid cause and in accordance with the procedural due process. According to the Court it found that, although the procedural due process was followed and complied with the petitioner was not removed for a valid cause, since to start with the committee was created to investigate the administrative aspect of the criminal cases being faced by the petitioner at that time. Now taking into consideration that the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal cases, the court believes that there is no ground for the administrative case to continue. It is admitted that criminal cases and administrative cases usually progress independently, however in this case it was proven in the criminal case that the petitioner never committed any of the alleged acts, therefore the case for the administrative case was also terminated, and therefore there is no longer any valid cause for the removal of the petitioner.
As for the validity of E.O. 132 which reorganized the BIR, the court ruled that the president has the authority to do so, as seen in the preamble of the E.O. which stated the legal basis of its issuance. Though it is admitted that the president had the power to reorganize the BIR, the court stated that such power is not limitless, the reorganization to be valid must be done in good faith. In the instant case the court found that the reorganization was done in bad faith or at least there are indications of bad faith, such as when the E.O. abolished the intelligence and investigation office and at the same time creating Intelligence and Investigation service to do the same functions of the abolished office. Most importantly is the non reappointment of the petitioner, the petitioner being a holder of a career service, should have been prioritized or preferred in appointing people to new offices created by the reorganization, but in this case the petitioner was never reappointed instead he was dismissed from service without any separation benefits at all. The court ruled that the petitioner is reinstated as an assistant commissioner and is entitled to back wages.
