Digest: University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission (356 SCRA 57, 2000)
Facts:
·
"Dr. Alfredo B.
De Torres is an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines in Los
Baños (UPLB) who went on a vacation leave of absence without pay from September
1, 1986 to August 30, 1989. During this period, he served as the Philippine
Government'' official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural
Development for Asia and [the] Pacific (CIRDAP).
·
"When the term of
his leave of absence was about to expire, CIRDAP requested the UPLB for an extension
of said leave of absence for another year, but was denied by Dr.
Eulogio Castillo, the then Director of the Agricultural Credit Corporation,
Inc. (ACCI) of UPLB. In the same letter, Dr. Castillo advised Dr. De Torres to
report for duty at UPLB not later than September 15, 1989; while the then UPLB
Chancellor Raul P. de Guzman apprised him on the rules of the Civil Service on
leaves and warned of the possibility of being considered on Absence Without
Official Leave (AWOL) if he failed to return and report for duty as directed.
·
"Dr. De Torres
wrote UPLB that he had 'no alternative but x x x to pursue the matter in
continuing his commitment to CIRDAP.' In response thereto, Chancellor de Guzman
warned De Torres, in a Letter dated November 20, 1989, that in case of the
latter's failure to report 'within 30 days from today,' UPLB would be forced to
drop him from the rolls of personnel. Despite the warning, Dr. De Torres did
not report to work.
·
"On January 3,
1994 or after almost five years of absence without leave, Dr. De Torres wrote
the incumbent Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal that he was reporting back to duty
at ACCI-UPLB effective January 3, 1994 x x x. However, Chancellor Villareal
notified Dr. De Torres that 'when an employee reports back for duty, he should
have been from an approved leave …' Likewise, Director Leodegacio M. Ilag, of
ACCI-UPLB, in a Letter dated February 10, 1994, informed De Torres that in the
absence of any approved application for leave of absence, he [was] considered
to be on AWOL. Thus, he was advised to re-apply with UPLB.
·
" Dr. De Torres
wrote Chancellor Villareal seeking reconsideration [of] the two aforementioned
decisions x x x. On July 4, 1994, Chancellor Villareal reversed his
earlier stand and notified De Torres that since records at UPLB [did] not show
that he ha[d] been officially dropped from the rolls he may report for duty x x
x.
·
"Mesdames Juanita
Baskinas and Winifreda Medina, members of Academic Personnel Committee,
ACCI-UPLB, requested the Civil Service Commission regarding the employment
status of Dr. De Torres x x x.
·
Commission issued CSC
Resolution No. 95-3045 that ruled that Dr. De Torres is considered to have been
dropped from the service as of September 1, 1989. Hence, his re-employment
requires the issuance of appointment subject to the requirements of Civil
Service Law and Rules
· petitioners argue that (1) the issuance of a new appointment in favor of Petitioner De Torres is not needed, because he was not formally dropped from the rolls of the University of the Philippines
Issue: Whether or not CSC has the power to dictate the dismissal of Dr. Torres despite AWOL
Ruling:
No.
UP's actuations, in spite of Section 33, Rule XVI of
the Revised Civil Service Rules, are consistent with the exercise of its
academic freedom. We have held time and again that "the University has the
academic freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach,
what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to
study." Clearly, this freedom
encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and,
concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and
other academic personnel. This Court declared in Ateneo de Manila
University v. Capulong: "As corporate entities, educational
institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish
their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external
controls or pressure." Similarly, Vicente G.
Sinco, a former UP president and delegate to the 1973 Constitutional
Convention, stressed that the Constitution "definitely grants the right of
academic freedom to the University as an institution as distinguished from the
academic freedom of a university professor."
We are not unaware that academic freedom has been
traditionally associated with freedom of thought, speech, expression and the
press. But, as explained by
Constitutional Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna during the deliberations on
Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, "[s]ince academic
freedom is a dynamic concept, we want to expand the frontiers of freedom,
especially in education, therefore, we shall leave it to the courts to develop
further the parameters of academic freedom."
Thus, we hold that by opting to retain private
petitioner and even promoting him despite his absence without leave, the
University was exercising its freedom to choose who may teach or, more
precisely, who may continue to teach in its faculty. Even in the light of the
provision of the Revised Civil Service Law, the Respondent CSC had no authority
to dictate to UP the outright dismissal of its personnel. The former could not
have done so without trampling upon the latter's constitutionally enshrined
academic freedom. Moreover, in Chang v. Civil Service Commission, the Court stressed
that "[t]he CSC is not a co-manager, or surrogate administrator of
government offices and agencies. Its functions and authority are limited to
approving or reviewing appointments to determine their concordance with the
requirements of the Civil Service Law." In short, on its own, the CSC does
not have the power to terminate employment or to drop workers from the rolls.
0 Comments