Article IX, Sec 2 (1) MIRANDA vs. CARREON, et. al FACTS:
In the early part part of 19 1988 88,, Vice Vice Mayor Mayor Amelit Amelita a Navar Navarro ro,, while while serving as Acting Mayor of the City of Santiago becase of the sspension of Mayor !ose Miran"a, appointe" respon"ents to varios permanent positions in the the city city gove goverrnmen nmentt an" an" whic which h appo appoin intm tmen ents ts wer were base base" " on the the evalation ma"e by the City #ersonnel Selection an" #romotion $oar" %#S#$& prsant to 'A (1)*+
owever, when Mayor Miran"a resme" his o-ce on March ., 1998, he forme" a three/man special performance a"it team, to con"ct a personnel eval evala ati tion on a"i a"itt to thos those e who who wer were sc scrreene eene" " by the the #S #S#$ #$ incl incl" "in ing g respon"ents hereof+ After which, the a"it sbmitte" a report stating that respon"ents were fon" 0wanting in their performance+ 2hs, on !ne 1*, 1998 19 98,, thr three mont months hs afte after, r, Mayo Mayorr Mira Miran" n"a a iss isse" e" an or"e or"err ter termina minati ting ng respo respon"e n"ents nts33 servi services ces e4ecti e4ective ve !ne !ne 1. 1.,, 19 1998 98 becas becase e they they 0perfo 0perform rme" e" poorly "ring the probationary perio"+ 'espon"ents appeale" to the CSC , conten"ing that being employees on probation, they can be "ismisse" from the service on the gron" of poor performance only after their probationary perio" of si5 months, not after three %6& months+ 2hey also "enie" that an evalation on their performance was con"cte", hence, their "ismissal from the service violate" their right to "e process+ 2hereafter, 2hereafter, CSC isse" a 'esoltion 'esoltion reversing reversing the or"er of Mayor Miran"a an" or"ering that the respon"ents be reinstate" to their former positions with payment of bac7 wages+ 2his was appeale" by petitioner to the CA an" which the CA ren"ere" ren"ere" a ecision a-rming in toto the CSC 'esoltion+ ence, the instant petition+ ISSUES:
a+ hether the CSC erre" in its "ecision to reinstate respon"ents an" pay bac7 wages+ b+ hether respon"ents were "enie" of "e process + c+ hether petitioner has legal personality to :le petition+
RESOUTION;
a+ NO+ 2he 2he Cons Consti tit tti tion on prov provi" i"es es that that 0no o-ce o-cerr or emplo employee yee of the civil civil servi service ce shall shall be remov remove" e" or sspen" sspen"e" e" e5cep e5ceptt for case provi"e" by law+
%1& nsatisfactory con"ct an" %=& want of capacity+
hile the Co"e "oes not "e:ne an" "elineate the concepts of these two gron"s, however, the Civil Service >aw %#resi"ential ecree No+ 8*(, as amen"e"& provi"es speci:c gron"s for "ismissing a government o-cer or employee from the service+ Among these gron"s are ine-ciency an" incompetence in the performance of o-cial "ties+ In the case at bar, respon"ents were "ismisse" on the gron" of poor performance+ #oor performance falls within the concept of ine-ciency an" incompetence in the performance of o-cial "ties which, as earlier mentione", are gron"s for "ismissing a government o-cial or employee from the service+
$t ine-ciency or incompetence can only be "etermine" after the passage of s-cient time, hence, the probationary perio" of si5 %)& months for the respon"ents+ In"ee", to be able to gage whether a sbor"inate is ine-cient or incompetent re?ires enogh time on the part of his imme"iate sperior within which to observe his performance+ 2his con"ition, however, was not observe" in this case+ As aptly state" by the CSC, it is ?ite improbable that Mayor !ose Miran"a col" :nally "etermine the performance of respon"ents for only the :rst three months of the probationary perio"+
b+ !ES+ 'espon"ents vehemently assert that they were never noti:e" in writing regar"ing the stats of their performance, neither were they warne" that they will be "ismisse" from the service shol" they fail to improve their performance+ Signi:cantly, petitioner "i" not refte respon"ents3 assertion+ 2he recor"s show that what respon"ents receive" was only the termination or"er from Mayor !ose Miran"a+ @bviosly, respon"ents3 right to "e process was violate"+
c. NO+ 2he Cort hel" that petitioner, not being a real party in interest, has no legal personality to :le this petition+ $esi"es, his motion for
reconsi"eration was vali"ly with"rawn by the incmbent Mayor+ ven assming he is a real party in interest, we see no reason to "istrb the :n"ings of both the CSC an" the Cort of Appeals+ 2he reinstatement of respon"ents who, nfortnately, were victims of political bic7erings, is in or"er+
"#EREFORE, the petition is DENIED+ 2he assaile" ecision "ate" May =1, 1999 of the Cort of Appeals in CA/B+'+ S# No+ 6)99( is AFFIRMED+
