NAME: EISONE BRIX R.

MANUALES

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SCHEDULE: WED 5:30 -7:30

TOPIC:

AUTOMATIC REVERSION RULE

Automatic Reversion Rule Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 provides that Sec. 13. All appointments involved in a chain of promotions must be submitted simultaneously for approval by the Commission. The disapproval of the appointment of a person proposed to a higher position invalidates the promotion of those in lower positions and automatically restores them to their former positions. However, the affected persons are entitled to the payment of salaries for services actually rendered at a rate fixed in their promotional appointments. Under the aforecited section, before a public official or employee can be automatically restored to her former position, the following requisites must be present: 1. series of promotions 2. All promotional appointments are simultaneously submitted to the Commission for approval 3. Commission disapproves the appointment of a person to a higher position Case: DELFIN N. DIVINAGRACIA, JR. RAMON vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS,

Facts: Filomena R. Mancita was appointed on 1 August 1980 as Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, in a permanent capacity. In 1983 the Local Government Code took effect and renamed MDC into Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) which the Sangguniang Bayan of Pili approved a resolution creating and organizing the same office. On 1985 the services of Mancita were termintated by then Mayor Anastacio M. Prila due to the abolishment of MDC as a result of reorganization of the Local Government of Pili. Private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario who was then the Municipal Budget Officer was appointed MPDC on 10 June 1985 to take effect on 1 July 1985. Nacario was replaced by Digna Isidro as Municipal Budget Officer. Isidro was succeeded a year later by Eleanor Villarico who served until 1990. Villarico resigned on 1 March 1990 the Budget Office became vacant until 30 September 1991. On 1 October 1991, petitioner Alexis D. San Luis, Cashier II of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), was temporarily appointed Municipal Budget Officer of Pili. San Luis was reappointed to the same position on 22 June 1992, this time in a permanent capacity, by petitioner Delfin N. Divinagracia, Mayor of Pili. Meanwhile, Mancita appealed her termination to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB). On 20 June 1989 the MSPB declared her separation from the service illegal, holding that the Office of the Municipal Development Coordinator was abolished by the Local Government Code of 1991 and not by the reorganization of the Municipality of Pili as claimed by Mayor Prila. According to the MSPB, Mancita was in fact qualified for the newly-created position of MPDC since the powers and duties of the two positions were essentially the same. It ordered Mayor Divinagracia to reinstate Mancita to the position of MPDC or to an equivalent position, and to pay her backwages from the date of her separation. The decision of MSPB was appealed by Mayor Divinagracia to the Civil Service Commission but the appeal was dismissed on 16 July 1990. On 15 October 1990, Mayor Divinagracia informed private respondent Nacario that she was being relieved of her position as MPDC. On 8 November 1990 private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief against CSC Chairperson Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Mayor Delfin N.

Divinagracia, Jr., Elium Banda, Regional Director of CSC in Region 5, and Filomena R. Mancita, praying for the annulment of CSC Resolution. While the petition of Mancita was pending with the SC, Nacario sent a query to public respondent Commission asking about her status as a permanent employee of the Municipality of Pili after she had accepted the position of MPDC. While the petition of Mancita was pending with us, Nacario sent a query to public respondent Commission asking about her status as a permanent employee of the Municipality of Pili after she had accepted the position of MPDC. In a letter dated 8 December 1992 public respondent opined that the reinstatement of Mancita to the position of MPDC was not a valid cause for Nacario's termination, and since she was the former Municipal Budget Officer. Upholding Nacario's right to security of tenure the CSC held that the reinstatement of Mancita to the position of MPDC could not be a valid cause for the termination of Nacario. Public respondent relied on Sec. 13, Rule VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of 1978 in directing the restoration of Nacario to her former position. Sec. 13 mandates the return of an appointee, in a chain of promotions, to his former position once his appointment is subsequently disapproved. Petitioners have come to us for relief praying that CSC Resolution be nullified for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Issue: Whether or not restoration of private respondent Nacario to her former office was valid. Held: Petition denied. Petitioner Alexis D. San Luis cannot hold on to the position of Municipal Budget Officer. On the other hand, respondent Prescilla B. Nacario who is protected by law in her security of tenure should be reinstated thereto. Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 provides that Sec. 13. All appointments involved in a chain of promotions must be submitted simultaneously for approval by the Commission. The disapproval of the appointment of a person proposed to a higher position invalidates the promotion of those in lower positions and automatically restores them to their former positions. However, the affected persons are entitled to the payment of salaries for services actually rendered at a rate fixed in their promotional appointments. Under the aforecited section, before a public official or employee can be automatically restored to her former position, there must first be a series of promotions; second, all appointments are simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval; and third, the CSC disapproves the appointment of a person proposed to a higher position. The essential requisites prescribed under Sec. 13 do not avail in the case at bench. To start with, the movement of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC cannot be considered a promotion for the term connotes an increase in duties and responsibilities as well as a corresponding increase in salary. Conformably therewith, we find the movement of Nacario one of lateral transfer. A careful examination of the qualifications, powers and duties of a Budget Officer and an MPDC provided under the Local Government Code of 1991 shows that the latter office is not burdened with more duties and responsibilities than the former. It is also interesting to note that there was, on the contrary, a reduction in the basic salary of Nacario, from P30,505.20 per annum as Budget Officer to P27,732.00 per annum as MPDC. Moreover, private respondent admitted in her comment and in her memorandum that the position of Budget Officer and MPDC were of the same rank, salary grade and level. Aside from the lack of a series of promotions, the other two (2) requisites are not also present, i.e., the appointments of the parties concerned were not simultaneously submitted

to the CSC for approval the appointment (permanent) of Nacario was approved by the CSC on 13 June 1985 while the appointment (permanent) of San Luis was approved by the CSC on 9 February 1993 and, the ouster of Nacario from the Office of MPDC was a result of the MSPB decision directing the reinstatement of Mancita and not because the CSC disapproved her appointment as MPDC.