PPA V MONSERATE
FACTS
In 1977, Monserate started her government service as Bookkeeper II in the Port Management Office, PPA, Iloilo City. A year after, she was promoted to Cashier II. Two year after, she was promoted to Finance Officer (SG 16). In 1988, PPA was reorganized and Monserate applied for the permanent position of Manager II (SG 19) of the Resource Management Division, PPA. In the Comparative Data Sheet, she ranked 1st among 6 aspirants to said position. Eventually, the GM of PPA, Dumlao, appointed her to the position of Manager II (RMD). Consequently, she assumed office and discharged its functions. Months after, the CSC approved her appointment. However, Anino (ranked 2nd to Monserate), filed an appeal/petition with the PPA Appeals Board, protesting against her appointment. The PPA Appeals Board sustained the appeal and rendered ineffective Monserate’s appointment based on certain documents, which were not extensively discussed or explained. The new GM of PPA, Dayan, issued a Special Order creating PPA’s Manager Pool, where Monserate was excluded from the pool-list and placed instead the name of Anino as Manager II, RMD. Monserate filed with PPA GM an appeal/request for clarification and questioned her replacement under the Special Order, claiming that the proceeds were irregular since she was not notified of the hearing, she was not furnished a copy of the protest filed by Anino, she was not informed of the reasons behind her replacement, and their Port Manager was not included in the proceedings. Pending her appeal, GM Dayan issued another Special Order, which officially reassigned her to the position of Administrative Officer (SG 15), which was the former position of Anino and lower than her previous post. Unheeded, she filed an appeal with the CSC, protesting Anino’s appointment and the propriety of the Resolution of the Appeals Board. After 6 years, CSC ruled in favor of the Appeals Board and sustained Anino’s appointment, contending that the appointing authority may still withdraw the appointment if a protest is seasonably filed, in accordance with the Omnibus Rules. Monserate filed a petition for review with the CA, which it granted in her favor and nullified the appointment Anino, due to lack of proper proceeding and evidence to support the PPA Appeals Board Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was due process when Anino replaced Monserato as RMD Manager II .
HELD
NO. Contrary to petitioners’ claim, Monserate was demoted, not by reason of the PPA reorganization, but due to the PPA Appeals Board Resolution, sustaining Anino’s protest against her appoiment. Unfortunately, the Court cannot accord validity to the Resolution of the PPA Appeals Board upholding the appointment of Anino since there was no appointment to uphold in the first place. Anino was appointed 2 months after the Resolution.
Moreover, the Court found questionable the grounds for which the PPA Appeals Board demoted Monserate as these were incomprehensible for lack of discussion or explanation to enable Monserate to know the reason for her demotion. It upheld the findings of the CA that the PPA Appeals Board Resolution was void for lack of proper notice to Monserate. Thus, her demotion was deemed as tantamount to a revocation of her appointment as RMD Manager II and was a patent violation of her constitutional right to security of tenure and due process.
Although the appointing authority has a wide latitude of discretion in the selection and appointment of qualified persons, the moment the discretionary power of appointment is exercised and the appointee assumed office, such appointment cannot anymore be revoked by the appointing authority and appoint another in his stead, except for cause. In this case, there was no evidence of justifying the revocation of Monserate’s appointment by demoting her. The CA reinstated her to her post as RMD Manager II. Since her demotion was void, her post as such was never vacant.
BACKWAGES: CA reinstated her to her post as RMD Manager II without backwages. Monserate, during the proceedings, assumed her lower position as Administrative Officer. Although his appointment is void, Anino was considered a de facto officer during the period of his incumbency. The rule is that, where there is a de jure officer, a de facto officer, during his wrongful incumbency, is NOT entitled to emoluments attached to the office. However, this cannot be applied in this case. Monserate assumed under protest the position of Administrative Officer. Since then, she had been receiving the emoluments, salary and other compensation attached to such post. Thus, she cannot recover full backwages for the period when she was unlawfully deprived thereof. She is entitled only to backpay differentials.
