Legally Yours,  Political Law

Dario v. Mison

Dario v. Mison

176 SCRA 84 | August 8, 1989

FACTS:

Pres. Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, providing for the intention of the President to, “completely reorganize the government, eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime.” Subsequently, Pres. Aquino promulgated E.O. No. 127, “Reorganizing the Ministry of Finance”, where, in Sec. 59, it provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs. Pursuant to the reorganization, Commissioner Mison issued separation notices to a total of 394 officials, including the petitioner, Cesar Dario, in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner.

Thus, Cesar Dario petitioned for reinstatement on the ground that the Provisional Constitution giving the power to dismiss public officials without cause ended on February 25, 1987, seeing as the public officials enjoyed security of tenure under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. However, respondent Commissioner Mison contended that Sec. 16, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) allows the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs under E.O. No. 127 (authorizing separation without cause) to continue even after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution – citing the case of Jose v. Arroyo, wherein the Court decided in favor of a similar notion. Thus, there was no violation of security of tenure. 

The Civil Service Commission, nevertheless, ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent motioned for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Does E.O. No. 127, providing reorganization, allow the “separation” of Dario from the Bureau of Customs despite his right to security of tenure under the 1987 Constitution?

HELD:

No. The Court held that E.O. No. 127, providing reorganization, does not allow the “separation” of Dario from the Bureau of Customs despite his right to security of tenure under the 1987 Constitution.

In line with this, the Court maintains that reorganization entails that an office is abolished, thus there actually no separation or dismissal such that these concepts imply that there is an office to be separated from. However, the Court asserts that, reorganizations abolishing an office would only be valid if it passes the test of good faith. A Reorganization carried out in good faith must have for its purpose the efficiency of both the economy and bureaucracy. In this case, there is lack of good faith such that there is no showing that legitimate structural changes were made, only that personnel were reduced. Thus, it cannot be said that it was done by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. Thus, since there is lack of good faith, there is no valid reorganization that would allow the “separation” of the petitioners, in keeping with their security of tenure. The act of reorganization of the Bureau of Customs dismissing Dario is unconstitutional

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *