Miranda v.

Carreon (11 April 2003, Sandoval-Gutierrez)

Procedural
Iue 1
WON Miranda has legal standing to fle the petition
Petitioner! As a taxpayer, he has legal interest to fle the present petition
"epondent! Since Miranda ceased to be the mayor, he no longer has
legal personality to fle the present petition
#eld! NO
"atio!
Section 17, Rule 3 o the 1!!7 Rules o "i#il $rocedure, as amended,
pro#ides%
&Sec' 17' Death or separation of a party who is a
public ofcer. When a public o(cer is a party in an action in his
o(cial capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns or other)ise
ceases to hold o(ce, the action may be continued and maintained by
or against his successor i, )ithin thirty *3+, days ater the successor
ta-es o(ce or such time as may be granted by the "ourt, it is
satisactorily sho)n by any party that there is substantial need or
continuing or maintaining it and the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue the action o his predecessor'.
So, )hen Miranda ceased to be mayor o Santiago "ity, the action may
be continued and maintained by his successor, Mayor /melita Na#arro,
i there is substantial need to do so'
Mayor Na#arro, ho)e#er, ound no substantial need to continue and
maintain the action o her predecessor in light o the "S" Resolution
declaring that respondents0 ser#ices )ere illegally terminated by
ormer Mayor 1ose Miranda' 2n act, she fled )ith the "ourt o /ppeals
a&Motion to Withdra) the Motion or Reconsideration. )hich )as fled
by Miranda and she reinstated the respondents'
/s or Miranda0s standing as taxpayer, the same is untenable' Section
3, Rule 3 o the same Rules pro#ides%
&Section 3' Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party
)ho stands to be benefted or in4ured by the 4udgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the a#ails o the suit' 5nless other)ise authori6ed
by la) or these Rules, e#ery action must be prosecuted or deended in
the name o the real party in interest'.
7#en as a taxpayer, petitioner does not stand &to be benefted or
in4ured by the 4udgment o the suit'. 2t bears stressing that &a
taxpayer0s suit reers to a case )here the act complained
o directly in#ol#es the illegal disbursement o public unds rom
taxation'. 8he present case in#ol#es illegal termination and not illegal
disbursement o public unds'
Su$tantive
Iue 1
WON respondents0 ser#ices )ere illegally terminated by then Mayor Miranda
Petitioner! No
"epondent! 8hey )ere not actually e#aluated on their perormance' 9ut
assuming there )as indeed such an e#aluation, it should ha#e been done by
their immediate super#isors, not by those appointed by ormer Mayor 1ose
Miranda'
#eld! :7S
"atio!
5nder the Re#ised /dministrati#e "ode o 1!;7, a go#ernment o(cer
or employee may be remo#ed rom the ser#ice on t)o *3, grounds% *1,
unsatisactory conduct and *3, )ant o capacity'
8he "i#il Ser#ice <a) *$residential =ecree No' ;+7, as amended,
pro#ides specifc grounds or dismissing a go#ernment o(cer or
employee rom the ser#ice' /mong these grounds are ine(ciency and
incompetence in the perormance o o(cial duties'
Respondents )ere dismissed on the ground o poor perormance. $oor
perormance alls )ithin the concept o ine(ciency and incompetence
in the perormance o o(cial duties )hich are grounds or dismissing a
go#ernment o(cial or employee rom the ser#ice'
9ut ine(ciency or incompetence can only be determined ater the
passage o su(cient time, hence, the probationary period o six *>,
months or the respondents' 2t is improbable that Mayor 1ose Miranda
could fnally determine the perormance o respondents or only the
frst three months o the probationary period'
8he Respondents )ere also denied due process )hen they )ere not
inormed in )riting regarding the status o their perormance, neither
)ere they )arned that they )ill be dismissed rom the ser#ice should
they ail to impro#e their perormance as re?uired in 2tem 3'3 *b,,
Section @2 o the Omnibus Auidelines on /ppointments and Other
$ersonnel /ctions *"S" Memorandum "ircular No' 3;, Series o 1!!3,
as amended by "S" Memorandum "ircular No' 13, Series o 1!!B,'
Curthermore, the contention that the only reason behind the
respondents0 arbitrary dismissal )as Mayor 1ose Miranda0s perception
that they )ere not loyal to him, being appointees o then /cting Mayor
Na#arro appears to be true considering that all those )ho )ere
accepted and screened by the $S$9 during the incumbency o /cting
Mayor Na#arro )ere rated to ha#e perormed poorly by an audit team
)hose three members )ere personally pic-ed by Mayor 1ose Miranda'