RUBIO v PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
FACTS
RA 3469 authorized the construction of Multi -Storey Tenement Buildings, which the respondent PHHC is tasked to administer and maintain. It issued original and permanent appointments to petitioners Rubio in these projects, holding regular and permanent positions provided for in the Plantilla of personnel of the projects. In 1966, PHHC issued a resolution (No. 686), which abolished the positions and terminated the services of those employees who were granted original appointment from Jan 1965 up to the date of the resolution. This was the basis for the termination of the services of petitioners. Another resolution (No. 133) was issued, which authorized the hiring of 36 casuals. Based on this, PHHC hired 31 casuals from those who had been working from then on. Petitioners Rubio, then, questioned their termination, contending that Resolution 686 does not apply to them. CFI of Quezon City rendered a decision, which ordered the PHHC to reinstate the petitioners and to pay their backwages and allowances that they may have had earned.
ISSUE
Whether or not PHHC’s Resolution 686 is applicable to petitioners Rubio
HELD
NO, the petitioners were dismissed without cause. The Resolution was a mere pretext to replace the petitioners and in fact, no abolition of positions was effected. The subsequent “casual” employees were not really casual, but more or less permanent, because their salaries had been appropriated in the budget for the following year. Moreover, petitioners may not be considered as employees of PHHC, but employees of the Multi-Storey Tenement Housing Project because their salaries were derived from the rentals of the buildings, not from the appropriations made by the PHHC. BP 337 (Local Government Code) was passed in 1983. Under it, Sec 76 provides that when a position of an official or employee under the civil service is abolished, the official or employee shall be reinstated in another vacant position. If there is no vacant position, s/he shall be entitled to a separation pay, equivalent to one-month salary for each year of service over and above the monetary privileges granted to them under existing laws. Although this provision may seem to be applicable only to local government positions, the Court found it proper to apply it to personnel of the government, including the petitioners. However, 32 years have already passed and the Court found it doubtful if reinstatement would be possible–many might have found a new job, others might have reached their retirement age, some might have died already. Thus, it ordered PHHC to pay the petitioners separation pay in accordance to BP 337, Sec 76 as well as back salaries corresponding to a period of 5 years without qualification or deduction.
