Digest: Canonizado v. Aguirre (323 SCRA 312, 2000)

Facts: Dela Torres, Canonizado, Pureza and Adiong were appointed Commissioners of NAPOLCOM. They were appointed separately, in various years and their terms had not expired at the time the amendatory law to R.A. 6975 was passed. R.A. 8551 declared the terms of sitting commissioners as expired upon its effectivity.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition.

Ruling: NO. Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them. It involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. Naturally, it may result in the loss of ones position through removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization to be valid, it must also pass the test of good faith, laid down in Dario v.n:

...As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the "abolition," which is nothing else but a separation or removal, is done for politieasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid "abolition" takes place and whatever "abolition" is done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.

 

Under R.A. 6975, the NAPOLCOM was described a collegial body within the DILG whereas R.A. 8551 made it an agency attached to the department for policy and program coordination. This does not result in the creation of an entirely new office.