This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-10-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A reorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. [19] It could result in the loss of one's position through removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization for the purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid, it must pass the test of good faith; otherwise, it is void ab initio.[20] | |||||
|
2010-07-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, a reorganization is valid provided that it is done in good faith. As a general rule, the test of good faith lies in whether the purpose of the reorganization is for economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient.[19] Removal from office as a result of reorganization must, thus, pass the test of good faith.[20] A demotion in office, i.e., the movement from one position to another involving the issuance of an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or rank which may or may not involve a reduction in salary,[21] is tantamount to removal, if no cause is shown for it.[22] Consequently, before a demotion may be effected pursuant to a reorganization, the observance of the rules on bona fide abolition of public office is essential.[23] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Magnaye was denied due process. We ruled in Tria v. Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas [24] that the prohibition in Article IX (B) (2) (3) of the Constitution against dismissal of a civil service officer or employee "except for cause provided by law" is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires that the dismissal comes only after notice and hearing,[25] while substantive due process requires that the dismissal be "for cause."[26] | |||||
|
2010-04-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this regard, we are mindful of the previous pronouncement of this Court in Dario v. Mison[28] that: Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. 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 political reasons 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. (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
|||||
| Under the said provision, the President could validly remove government employees, elected or appointed even without cause.[45] Indeed, it was not required that there be a ground or cause for removal or termination of any employee or official which was elected or appointed under the 1973 Constitution.[46] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| In the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a mere reorganization under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of streamlining the NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy and efficiency. It is an act well within the authority of President motivated and carried out, according to the findings of the appellate court, in good faith, a factual assessment that this Court could only but accept.[15] | |||||