Digest: Daza v. Lugo (553 SCRA 532, 2008)
Facts: Records show that former
Governor Madeleine P. Mendoza-Ong of Northern Samar issued an appointment dated
March 7, 2001 in favor of respondent Ronan P. Lugo as Sanitation Inspector I
under permanent status. The appointment was approved on March 20, 2001 by the
CSC Provincial Field Office of Catarman, Northern Samar.
On August 10, 2001, petitioner Raul A. Daza, the newly elected Governor of Northern Samar, issued Memorandum No. 352-01 directing the Department Heads to evaluate the performance of probationary employees (including respondent) under their respective supervisions to determine whether they were qualified to acquire permanent status.
petitioner issued a Memorandum informing respondent that his probationary service was terminated due to his unsatisfactory conduct.
Respondent appealed petitioner's termination order to the CSC, Regional Office VIII (CSCRO VIII).
Issue: Whether CA erred in stating that it was respondent's immediate supervisor who failed to evaluate and submit respondent's Performance Evaluation Report.
Ruling: The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's arguments.
The Constitution provides that
"[N]o officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause provided by law." Sec. 26, par. 1, Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 states:
All such persons (appointees
who meet all the requirements of the position) must serve a probationary period
of six months following their original appointment and shall undergo a thorough
character investigation in order to acquire permanent civil service
status. A probationer may be dropped from the service for
unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity any time before the expiration of
the probationary period; Provided, That such action is appealable
to the Commission.
Thus, the services of
respondent as a probationary employee may only be terminated for a just cause,
that is, unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity.
In this case, petitioner's
Memorandum No. 352-01 directed to "[a]ll Concerned Office/Department
Heads/OICs" on the subject of "evaluation of concerned staff under
probationary status" clearly states: ". . . [A]s immediate
supervisor, you are directed to evaluate those concerned [probationary]
employees using our performance evaluation rating system and to submit a report
to the undersigned on or before the end of August 2001."
Hence, the CA correctly
stated:
[It is] crystal clear that
the above-quoted memorandum [No. 352-01] did not in any manner direct all
employees under probationary status, including petitioner, to submit their own
Performance Evaluation Report. It would also be absurd for these employees to
evaluate their own selves. Thus, if these employees, including petitioner,
failed to submit a Performance Evaluation Report to their immediate
supervisors, the same cannot be taken against them. Evidently, it was [Lugo's] immediate
supervisor who failed to evaluate and submit [Lugo's] Performance Evaluation
Report as required by the subject memorandum. On this point is the CSC Regional
Officer's findings and conclusion, which We take leave to quote with approval,
to wit -
0 Comments