Monday, April 8, 2019

[CASE DIGEST] PEDRO C. LAMEYRA vs. MAYOR GEORGE S. PANGILINAN (G.R. No. 131675)


January 18, 2000
 
Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

SUMMARY:

Lameyra, a janitor/messenger in the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna, was dropped from the rolls by Mayor Pangilinan pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994 for insubordination and for having been on AWOL for 30 days. On account of the personnel manager’s certification that Lameyra was indeed AWOL from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995, the CSC affirmed Mayor Pangilinan’s action. In his MR, Lameyra alleged that he had not been earlier furnished a copy of the Mayor’s comment, that the personnel officer refused to allow him to sign in the log book during the subject period, and that he was working in the office of the vice mayor as per the advice of the CSC Regional Office during the days he was declared AWOL.

Attached to Lameyra’s MR were affidavits from the vice mayor and his coworker affirming his allegations. The CSC, later affirmed by the CA, refused to consider these new evidence and proceeded to dismiss his MR. The SC, however, ruled that the personnel manager’s certification does not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to justify Lameyra’s dismissal. As such, the case is remanded to the CSC for further proceedings with due consideration of Lameyra's factual assertions contained in his MR.

DOCTRINE

While it is settled doctrine that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected and the SC should not be tasked to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body, it is axiomatic that such findings of fact should be supported by substantial evidence.

FACTS:

Pedro C. Lameyra was a janitor/messenger in the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna. He was appointed as such on February 2, 1988 under temporary status and was given a permanent appointment on January 1, 1989 to the same position by then Municipal Mayor Melquiadez Acomular. Mayor Acomular was defeated in the last election for the mayoralty post by respondent Mayor George S. Pangilinan.

On August 21, 1995, Lameyra received a letter from Mayor Pangilinan informing him that he is dropped from the roll of employees of the local government unit of Famy, Laguna pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to the following reasons: 

1. Insubordination; 
2. AWOL.
2.1 Absence without approved leave
a. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed of his separation from the service not later than five (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing in his 201 files.

Lameyra filed a notice of appeal with the CSC, alleging that he was a permanent employee and that he was terminated without prior written notice of the charges and without investigation and hearing, in violation of his rights to security of tenure and due process. Lameyra alleged that the act of Mayor Pangilinan was an act of political vengeance as the former was publicly known to have voted for the latter’s political rival during the May 8, 1995 election.

In his comment, Mayor Pangilinan said that Lameyra’s dismissal was due to his failure to justify his continued leave of absence without official leave. Mayor Pangilinan likewise enumerated several circumstances that warranted Lameyra’s dismissal. 

CSC: Dismissed Lameyra’s appeal and affirmed Mayor Pangilinan’s action. The CSC held that Lameyra was absent from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995 and that he has not submitted any proof that he actually filed an application for leave. Neither did he present an approved leave application concerning said absences. These were confirmed by Benito Vicencio, Personnel Officer/Human Resources Management Assistant of Famy, Laguna, who certified that Lameyra did not report for work during the said period.

Lameyra filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he had not earlier been furnished copy of Mayor Pangilinan’s comment and disputing the version of Mayor Pangilinan that he refused to report for work.

Lameyra alleged that upon the advice of the regional office of the CSC in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, he reported for work at the office of the Vice Mayor Constancio Fernandez, as he (Lameyra) was not allowed by the Personnel Officer, Benito Vicencio, to sign his name in the log book.

Attached to Lameyra’s motion was an Affidavit of Vice-Mayor Constancio A. Fernandez attesting to the fact that Lameyra was reporting to his office upon advice of the CSC at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, and that Lameyra was not allowed to sign the log book at the Office of the Mayor.

Also submitted with the motion for reconsideration was an affidavit of a co-employee, Remegio Jamilan, and Lameyra’s own sworn statement controverting the allegation of Mayor Pangilinan that he refused to report for work or sign the log book.

CSC: Denied Lameyra’s MR. The CSC gave credence to Personnel Officer Vicencio’s certification that Lameyra has not reported for work for the period from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995. And while it may be true that he was then within the premises of the Municipal Office, the fact remains that he was not officially reporting for duty as Janitor/Messenger.

CA: Affirmed CSC ruling.

Hence, the instant petition.

RULING

CA reversed. Case remanded to the CSC for further proceedings in accordance with the tenor of this decision.

Whether the CSC erred in refusing to consider the factual assertions submitted by Lameyra in his MR. – YES.

Whether Lameyra was denied due process. – YES.

LAMEYRA: The CA, in affirming the CSC's ruling, erred in evading the factual issues raised before it.

MAYOR PANGILINAN: The CSC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly ruled that Lameyra was properly terminated for AWOL. The affidavits which Lameyra submitted before the CSC cannot be considered “newly discovered evidence” as they were all along readily available to him and were no longer admissible at a late stage to set aside the judgment.

SC: The CSC and the CA erred in refusing to consider Lameyra’s factual assertions in his MR.

Right to due process

CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12 Series of 1994 provides that no prior notice is required to drop from the rolls an employee who has been continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) calendar days.

But in the instant case, Lameyra is challenging the allegation that he was on AWOL at all. It appears that on the basis of the certification of the Personnel Officer/Human Resources Management Assistant Benito Vicencio to the effect that Lameyra did not report for work for the period from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995, and the undisputed fact that he has not submitted any proof that he actually filed an application for leave nor presented any approved leave application for the said period, Lameyra’s termination from the service was upheld by the CSC and the CA.

Lameyra contests the finding that he was absent at all. He claims that he reported for work but was prevented from signing the log book by the very officer, Benito Vicencio, who certified that he did not report for work on the dates in question. He alleges in his petition and insists in his reply, that he was not furnished a copy of Mayor Pangilinan’s comment, and was able to secure a copy only after receiving a copy of the Resolution of the CSC upholding the termination of his service. This allegation of Lameyra, which was raised even in the CA, was not disputed by Mayor Pangilinan in his Comment to the Petition nor in his Comment to the Petition filed in the CA.

Accordingly, the first opportunity that Lameyra had to contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support his dismissal was when he filed his motion for reconsideration from the Resolution of the CSC.
The three sworn statements which were annexes to said motion directly controverted Vicencio’s certification that Lameyra was absent without leave, cannot be considered new evidence belatedly submitted as there was no notice and hearing when he was dropped from the rolls.

Considering that one of the affiants is Vice-Mayor Fernandez, whose acts as a public official are also entitled to a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, it would be in compliance with the requirements of due process to have given said sworn statement due consideration in view of the circumstances prevailing in this case.

Under these circumstances, it is believed that, in equity, and in proper compliance with the requirements of due process, Lameyra should be given a last full opportunity to prove his contention that the termination of his services was illegal.

Not substantial evidence

While it is settled doctrine that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected and the SC should not be tasked to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body, it is axiomatic that such findings of fact should be supported by substantial evidence.

In the instant case, the SC is not convinced that the certification of the personnel officer Vicencio that Lameyra did not report for work from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995 constitutes such substantial evidence in light of Lameyra’s submission that said personnel officer precisely prevented him from signing the log book, that he has been replaced by one Leynes in July, 1995, and that he has been asked to submit his resignation which he refused to do.