Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45895:154095&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:17:47+00:00

Document:
FRANCISCO C. ROSALES, JR., Petitioner, v. MIGUEL H. MIJARES, Respondent.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 55904 affirming Resolution No. 9912082 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) granting the appeal of the respondent herein from the Order dated September 24, 1998 dismissing the respondent as Municipal Engineer of Catarman, Northern Samar; and Resolution No. 992130 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Being the duly-elected mayor of Catarman, Northern Samar, during the 1998 local elections, Francisco C. Rosales, Jr. (or "petitioner") assumed office on July 1, 1999. Shortly thereafter, petitioner summoned the department heads for a conference, among whom was the municipal engineer, Miguel H. Mijares (or "respondent").
During the meeting, petitioner told respondent to resign under pain of abolition of his position. Not wishing to antagonize the mayor, respondent informed him a week later that he was "open" to the possibility of being transferred or detailed at the Provincial Engineering Office. Then and there, petitioner instructed respondent to prepare his papers.
On August 3, 1998, petitioner indorsed respondent to the provincial governor of Northern Samar for consideration for the position of Assistant Provincial Engineer.
Your request to transfer to the Provincial Engineering Office, Catarman, Northern Samar, is granted for a period of thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, subject to the condition imposed by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
Meanwhile, respondent continued reporting for work at the Municipal Engineer's Office. However, the provincial governor did not act on petitioner's endorsement.
The 30-day period given to you to transfer to the Provincial Engineering Office has now elapsed and, in as much as you did not seek an extension of your permit to transfer, you are considered resigned from this government unit as of September 13, 1996, pursuant to MC No. 38, S. 1993 of the Civil Service Commission.
In a letter dated October 2, 1998, respondent requested petitioner to withdraw the above-quoted separation letter. He pointed out that since the request for transfer to the Provincial Engineer's Office was not acted upon, the same never became effective and, therefore, he did not cease to be an employee of the municipal government.
In his reply letter dated October 15, 1998, petitioner explained that respondent was not terminated and that his separation from the service was by operation of law, i.e., Civil Service Commission (or "CSC") Memorandum Circular (or "MC") No. 38, S. 1993. In the same communication, petitioner offered to reinstate respondent.
On November 12, 1998, respondent filed a complaint for illegal termination against petitioner before the CSC. Treating the complaint as an appeal, the Director of CSC Regional Office No. 8 instructed Victoria E. Valeriano (or "Ms. Valeriano"), Head Civil Service Field Officer in Catarman, to conduct a fact-finding investigation on respondent's case. Pursuant to the directive, Ms. Valeriano asked petitioner to submit the original of respondent's request for transfer. In a letter dated January 11, 1998, petitioner informed Ms. Valeriano that respondent's request was merely verbal.
In an order dated April 16, 1999, the CSC Office of Legal Affairs required petitioner to comment on the appeal. Complying with the directive, petitioner explained that respondent's separation was valid and legal under CSC MC No. 38, S. 1993, since the latter's permit to transfer to the Provincial Engineer's Office expired without his transfer being effected. In support of his defense, petitioner appended his documentary evidence to his comment, including the legal opinions of the CSC Regional Office and the Provincial Prosecutor upholding the validity of his action.
The CSC held that the respondent did not freely and voluntarily seek permission from the petitioner to transfer to another office and that based on the record, the supposed transfer of the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer was a shrewd machination or clever ploy resorted to by the petitioner to oust the respondent from his position as Municipal Engineer; hence, such transfer was illegal. The CSC cited the rulings of this Court in Sta. Maria v. Lopez4 and Divinagracia, Jr. v. Sto. Tomas.5 The CSC also ruled that a request for transfer, under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 98-38, must be in writing; and that even assuming that a verbal request for transfer may be made, the petitioner failed to adduce any proof that the respondent made such verbal request, as well as the date of the effectivity of the transfer. The CSC cited its ruling in CSC Resolution No. 99-1616 dated July 20, 1999. The CSC declared that the letter of the petitioner to the respondent dated August 12, 1998 was but a detail of the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer.
The petitioner's motion for a reconsideration of the resolution was denied by the CSC per its Resolution No. 992130.
Well-settled is the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence (Lo v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 190). We see no cogent reason to depart from said principle.
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the appellate court.
I. IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WHICH IMPROPERLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF PART II, ITEM 5(a) OF CSC MC NO. 93-38 AND RULING THAT PETITIONER ILLEGALLY TERMINATED RESPONDENT.
II. IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS.
III. IN DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
respondent declared therein, as well as on the other documents on record, that he requested to be transferred to the Office of the Provincial Engineer, and that he secured photo copies of his service records and other documents from the municipality in support of his written request for transfer, and himself submitted such request to the Office of the Governor. The petitioner asserts that the October 28, 1998 Opinion of CSC Regional Office No. 8 and of the Provincial Prosecutor dated November 12, 1998 frontally belie the findings of the CSC and the appellate court. According to the petitioner, he should not be faulted by the CSC for applying the letter and spirit of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 93-38.
The petitioner further alleges that the respondent did not even heave a whimper of protest despite the receipt of the Letter dated September 24, 1998 informing him of his separation. The respondent is thus estopped, the petitioner insists, from assailing the termination of his service as Municipal Engineer of Catarman. The petitioner concedes that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, such as the CSC, are conclusive if based on substantial evidence. He, however, contends that, in this case, the CSC ignored and misunderstood the evidence on record, thereby committing a grave injustice.
Transfer - is a movement from one position without break in service involving the issuance of an appointment.
The transfer may be from one agency to another or from one organizational unit to another in the same agency.
An employee who seeks transfer to another office shall first secure permission from the head of the department or agency where he is employed stating the effective date of the transfer. If the request to transfer of an employee is not granted by the head of the agency where he is employed, it shall be deemed approved after the lapse of 30 days from the date of notice to the agency head.
Hon. Francisco C. Rosales, Jr.
In answer to your letter of 24 September 1998 terminating my services as Municipal Engineer of Catarman, effective September 13, 1998, allegedly due to my failure to seek an extension of my permit to transfer to [the] Provincial Engineering Office, please be reminded of the following facts and events.
The petitioner denied the allegation in his letter to the respondent dated October 15, 1998 that the CSC correctly disbelieved the petitioner's bare denial. Before the petitioner was elected Mayor of Catarman and assumed office, there was no reason for the respondent to abandon his position as Municipal Engineer and seek a transfer to another office. The respondent's ordeal commenced after the petitioner assumed office as Municipal Mayor and coerced the respondent into resigning or transferring to another position.
decided to transfer to the Office of the Provincial Engineer. In light of the demands and threats of the petitioner, the respondent had only three options: to resign, to agree to transfer to another office, or to remain as Municipal Engineer with the threat of the petitioner to have his position abolished hanging over his head.
Admittedly, rather than resign as demanded by the petitioner, the respondent opted to make himself available for appointment by the Provincial Governor as Assistant Provincial Engineer. However, the Form 212 submitted by the respondent to the Provincial Governor is not the written request envisaged in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 93-38 for the following reasons: (a) the respondent continued reporting and performing his duties as Municipal Engineer of Catarman and receiving his salary as such; and (b) the respondent did not send any written request to the petitioner for transfer to the Office of the Provincial Engineer.
Evidently, the respondent intended to request for permission to transfer to the position of Assistant Provincial Engineer only after the Governor had agreed thereto. The respondent did not want to risk unemployment by making a written request for transfer without first being assured of his appointment by the Provincial Governor to the position of Assistant Provincial Engineer; hence, he opted to wait for the Provincial Governor's approval for his appointment before submitting a written request for transfer to the petitioner. As it were, the Governor failed to act on the respondent's application.
The 30-day period given to you to transfer to the Provincial Engineering Office has now elapsed and in as much as you did not seek an extension of your permit to transfer, you are considered resigned from this government unit as of September 13, 1998, pursuant to MC No. 38 S 1993 of the Civil Service Commission.
By his September 24, 1998 letter to the respondent, the petitioner made it appear that he had granted the respondent permission to transfer within thirty days, and that the respondent failed to effect his transfer. This was done by the petitioner despite the absence of any letter from the respondent requesting for such transfer. By his August 12, 1998 letter, the petitioner merely detailed the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer. It must be stressed that the only legal effect of a detail of an employee, upon the lapse of the period of such detail, is for that employee to return to his permanent station. Thus, the respondent retained his position as Municipal Engineer despite his detail to the Office of the Provincial Engineer.
The petitioner capped his chicanery by considering the respondent resigned as of September 13, 1998, or after the lapse of the period for detail of the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer.
...[T]o sustain the argument advanced by [petitioner] would be setting a dangerous precedent. This will lead to a situation where any head of an agency or local government unit who, for whatever reason, wants to terminate a subordinate from his employment would simply inform the latter that his verbal request to transfer was accepted and, thereafter, exclude his name from the payroll, as what happened in the present case, although the employee never made any such request. This was never the intention of the framers of said rule as it would make a mockery of the employee's right to security of tenure.
...the Commission has noted that the purported grant by Mayor Rosales of permission to Mijares is utterly ambiguous. In his letter dated August 12, 1998, Mayor Rosales stated that '(y)our request to transfer to the Provincial Engineering Office, Catarman, Northern Samar, is granted for a period of thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, '.' This simply means that the supposed transfer of Mijares to the Provincial Office was granted by his stay or service thereat is good only for a period of 30 days.
The foregoing facts and circumstances duly supported by the evidence on record convinces the Commission that Mijares did not freely and voluntarily seek from Mayor Rosales permission to transfer to another office. On the contrary, it is apparent that the supposed transfer was a shrewd machination or clever ply (sic) resorted to oust Mijares from his present position. This, the Commission will never tolerate much less countenance, as this would infringe the right to security of tenure of Mijares.
the petitioner correctly applied CSC Memorandum Circular No. 93-38. This is because: (a) the petitioner falsely represented to the Regional Director and Provincial Prosecutor that the respondent had requested for a transfer to the Office of the Provincial Engineer when, in truth and in fact, the respondent had not done so; (b) the Regional Director and the Provincial Prosecutor were not even furnished with copies of the October 2, 1998 Letter of the respondent to the petitioner; and (c) the opinion of the CSC Regional Director and Provincial Prosecutor were not conclusive on the CSC, as the latter could still reverse the said opinion on appeal.
Movant claims that Mijares' appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period for filing appeals. He, thus, contends that the Commission should not have given due course to said appeal.
'...Because there is no vested right in technicalities, in meritorious cases, a liberal, not literal, interpretation of the rules becomes imperative and technicalities should not be resorted to in derogation of the intent and purpose of the rules which is the proper and just determination of litigation. Litigations, should as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims. As has been the constant rulings of this Court, every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities ''"
1998.24 In his letter dated October 15, 1998, the petitioner informed the respondent that he was forwarding the latter's personnel file to the CSC for its legal opinion on the matter.25 The petitioner, through counsel, sought the opinion of the CSC Regional Director on October 20, 1998.26 On October 28, 1998, the CSC Regional Director rendered her opinion in favor of the petitioner. The respondent then wrote to the Regional Director on November 4, 1998, anent the September 24, 1998 letter of the petitioner. The Regional Director treated the said letter of the respondent as an "appeal." In his comment on the appeal of the respondent, the petitioner did not contest the timeliness of the said "appeal" and opted to delve into and discuss the merits of the case.
On the last issue, we find that there is no factual basis for directing the petitioner to pay the costs.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. However, the award for costs is DELETED.
DAvide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, JJ., concur.
Puno, Tinga, on official leave.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Hilarion L. Aquino (retired), concurring.
2 Penned by Chairman Corazon Alma G. De Leon.
4 31 SCRA 637 (1970).
5 244 SCRA 595 (1995).
11 Divinagracia, Jr. v. Sto. Tomas, supra.
12 Sta. Maria v. Lopez, supra.
13 De Guzman, Jr. v. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 191 (2000).
14 25 SCRA 1 (1968), cited in Divinagracia, Jr. v. Sto. Tomas, supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.