Republic of the Philippines CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Regional Office No. IV #139 Panay Ave... Brgy. South Triangle 1103 Quezon City MACUHA, Lyn M., et al. Re: Appeal: Illegal Termination: Separation from Service; Violation of R.A. No. 6713 and Violation of Section 94 & 95 OFR.A. No. 7160 0420012117 (LGU ~ Municipal Government of San Andres. Romblon) NOTICE OF DECISION Sir/Madam. Please Seibe” ‘nett on’. YUL OIBe2017 -010 copy attached, was promulgated by the Office No. IV in the abov: this offic. DECISION No. Service Regional captioned case, the original copy of which is now on file with Please acknowledge receipt hereot. JUL 03 20m Very truly yours Mnttae | \Ge \\ he Xi s¢ wr Y. MARYKNGOLL TF. CAPILI-H. IBRAHIM Attomey Vi Copy fumishe: MAYOR FERNALD G. ROVILLOS Municipal Mayor Local Government Unit of San Andres 5504 Rombion LYN M. MACUHA * Poblacion, S: 5504 Romblon JEAN T. CRISOSTO LITA S.GaRK Brey. Calaiace RUMELS. MAvG Bry. Calunace, Su Aogees $504 Romb.or DENY H.GURO Sangguniang Bayan Member Local Govern nt Unit of San Andes 5804 Romblon, SALVIE S, BALOG. Poblacion, San Andres 5504 Romblon MARISSA DALINO. i, San Andres AYLA V. GALANC lac. San andres| Exe BE Pergbl of oe Phar | CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Pr ti 2AVAN MACUHA, Lyn M,, et al Number: 17-0107 Re: Appeal; Illegal Termination; Separation from Service; Violation of Promutgatea:SUL 03 2017 R.A. No. 6713 and Violation of Section 94 & 95 of RA. No. 7160 No420012117 (LGU —Municipal Government of San Andres, Romblon) DECISION Lyn M. Macuha, Salvie 8. Balog, both Clerk II, Jean T. Crisosto, Marissa 0. Dalino, Julita G. Obrique, Myla H. Galang, and Rumel S. Mayor, all Laborer I, of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of San Andres, Romblon, appeal the action of Dr. Fernald G. Rovillos, Municipal Mayor and Deny H. Guro, Sangguniang Bayan Member and Head of the Performance Management Team (PMT), same LGU, for allegedly separating them from service. Relevant portions of Macuha et al. appeal are hereby quoted, as follows: "Nie “Macuha et al. received their respective Memorandum Order No. 2017-008 dated 24 January 2017, from the Office of the Mayor, with subject, SEPARATION FROM SERVICE xxx “The MEMORANDUM Order No. 2017-008 reads “This Notice confirms your separation from the service of the Local Government Unit of San Andres, Rombion effective January 31, 2017, Please be informed that despite repeated feedback and performance coaching/advisories from the Performance Management Team (PMT), your work performance has not improved. rather, two (2) successive unsatisfactory performance ratings were reflected in the respective Office Performance Commitment Review/Individual Performance Commitment Review for the period of July to December 2015 to January to June 2016; “The subject matter is the result of the findings in the assessment, review and appeal processes conducted by the Performance Menagerem Team (PMI), this municipality and others concerned in compliance with Item In a avg ta Serve Responsive, Accesibl, Cuntous anid Effective Public Service 129 Panay Ave, Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City + M8 925-6561 10.63; 927-1830 - Gl escri_pald@yahoo.com » —9 worw.csc gow ph a0 i TRUE COPY CERT! EVER!VII, Paragraph “A: of the Strategic Performance Management System of the Local Government Unit of San Andres, Rombion which partly states: “If after advice and provision of developmental intervention, the employee still obtain unsatisfactory ratings in the immediate succeeding rating period or poor rating for the immediately succeeding rating period, he/she ‘may be dropped from the roll. “This decision have been affirmed by the Performance Management Team, this Municipality in the compliance with the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 6 Series of 2012; “In view thereof, this Office despite your repeated appeals in person to the Performance Management Team in verbatim in any form is giving ten (10) days to make your remarks/appeal upon receipt of this notice. “Convinced that the grounds stated in the said Memorandum are fabrications and lies, Macuha et al. filed a letter of Reconsideration addressed to Mayor Rovillos, said letter reads: De “We totally, vehemently oppose and object to the contents or intentions of the MEMO particularly the subject thereof: SEPARATION FROM SERVICE. At the outset, it is surprising that TERMINATION of employees of the Municipality was done via a MEMORANDUM, an awkward procedure which we surmised to be adapted to circumvent the law; “The subject MEMO reflected a one sided result of performance rating totally disregarding the rules in application. It is politically motivated designed to eradicate political adversaries of the present administration who oppose them during elections. This fact is very clear and patent because all personnels who were served of the SEPARATION OF SERVICE are supporters of the former mayor Atty. Geminiano G. Galicia, Jr., the latter being the political foe of the incumbent Local Chief Executive; It is not true thit there was repeated feedback and performance coaching/advisories done by the Performance Management Team (PMT) that despite such, no improvement was attained resulting to two (2) successive unsatisfactory performances, Never was there any instance where anyone of us had undergone any coaching/advisories done by the Performance Management Team (PMI). Any document pertaining herein are fabrications. We experience a lot of time that the PMT let us sign a blank Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) and eventually, they will be the one to ili up said IPCR to their wishes and caprice and to their satisfaction to get rid of us. Therefore, the result and 2 coPY /SPRMIENTO a 1 CERTI REVERLY)‘findings in the assessments did not reflect the true rating of us, hence said result cannot enforce the provision of item Vil, Paragraph “A” which states: “If after advise and provision of developmental intervention, the employees still obtain unsatisfactory rating in the immediate succeeding rating period or poor rating for the immediately succeeding rating period, he/she may be dropped from the roll”. “Furthermore the Individual Performance Commitment and Review (PCR) result was not performed or rated by the immediate supervisor for the review of the Performance Management Team (PMT) rendering said result without legal effect; “The affirmation therefore of the PMT of the decision is likewise a flaw and possés no legal effect to bind us hence separation from service is patently illegal; “Very patent likewise the absence of the result of the rating per Department Office Performance Commitment Review (OPCR) which could not reflect the performance of the said Department in so far as the performance of each employee is concerned. This absence. would greatly affect the credibility of Individual Performance Commitment Review (IPCR) of individual employee. “Finally, the Municipality of San Andres, Romblon grossly violated the provisions of STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SPMS) for reason that IPCR of all of us did not reflect our true performance but the caprice and wanting of the officials of the Municipality of San Andres, Romblon, particularly the members of the Performance Management Team (PMI) and the head of the office. We have been employees of the Municipality of San Andres, Romblon jor several years, where some of us even work for almost fifteen (15) years. We have performed our assigned job competently and in accordance to its mandate. We have not received any adverse unsatisfactory rating for the last several years. Only this time, with your administration that we surprisingly received unsatisfactory rating which did not reflect our true performance but your one-sided and fabricated result of our Individual Performance Commitment Review (IPCR): “Mt must be given due consideration that employment for us is property which could not be taken away without the observance of due process of law. “Wee “In a letter dated February 2, 2017, which were received by Macuha et al on various dates, denied the letter of consideration, hence this appeal.On April 4, 2017, this Office issued an Order directing Mayor Fernald G. Rovillos and Deny H. Guro, to submit their comment under oath and other relevant documents relative to the allegations of illegal termination, separation from service and violation of R.A. 6713 and violation of Section 94 & 95 of R. A. No. 7160, as above stated, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. In compliance with the directives of this Office, Mayor Rovillos and Guro submitted their comment dated May 29, 2017. Significant portions of said Comment are herewith quoted, as follows: Moos “Lyn M. Macuha, , Jean 1. Crisosto, Salvie S. Balog, Marissa O. Dalino, Julita G. Obrique, Myla H. Galang, and Rumel S. Mayor, were appointed as Clerk If, Laborer J, Clerk I Laborer 1, Laborer I Administrative Aide I (Laborer 1) and Laborer 1, respectively, were previously appointed by former Municipal Mayor Geminiano G. Galicia, Jr. of the Municipality of San Andres, Romblon; “During the incumbency of Mayor Galicia Jr., and probably because of their closeness to the Mayor, these appellants were not required to perform their’ jobs based on their job descriptions, and instead, were required to work other things which they were not appointed. As a result of that, appellants’ performances in their designated jobs were below par, and have this difficulty into adjusting there. Despite of that, the former Mayor did not do anything to address this problem such that, when the appellee took over as the new Municipal Mayor and required them to rate the performances of municipal employees, appellants rate were below par “Xie “x x x appellants were removed from the service on the basis of the findings and recommendations of the Performance Management Team ‘because of their failure to improve in their work performance for two (2) successive unsatisfactory performance ratings were reflected in the respective Office Performance Commitment _Review/Individual Performance Commitment Review for the period of July to December 2015 to January to June 2016; WHETHER OR — NOT THE TERMINATION/SEPARATION FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE HEREIN APPELLANTS IS ILLEGAL “At the outset, it is bear stressing that in administrative cases, the right to due process includes notice, which contains the ground/s of termination, an opportunity 10 be heard through explanation, and the decision, For one’s right to be heard can also be done through the 4 PY NENTO. fc ib a eR CERTIFIED, BEVERLYsubmission of a position paper, through a written pleading or given explanations, or even through written comments, or letters; “In the case at bar, appellants were all accorded of their basic right to be heard, as shown in the following. “First, there was this Performance Rating conducted by independent members of the Performance management Team of San Andres as required under the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) composed of municipal employees some loyal to former Mayor Galicia, Jr. and some loyal fo incumbent Mayor Rovillos; “Second, on the basis of the Performance Rating Result, appellants were required to explain through a memorandum why they were not able to make progress in ther performance for two (2) consecutive tithes; “Third, there was this notice or memorandum order issued by the appellee confirming the appellant's separation from service of the Local Government Unit of San Andres, Romblon effective January 31, 2017; “Fourth, there was a letter requesting for reconsideration of the Memorandum Order No. 2017-001 to 009, issued by the appellee confirming the appellant's separation from service, “Fifth, there was a letter from the appellee dated, February 03, 2017, denying the request for reconsideration of the appellant’s on their from service x x x; “The appellant's claim of bias and prejudice in the scores written by the Performance management Team on the performance of the appellant's is without any factual basis. Some of those employees like Sol G. Madalang and Cherry Padilla, Mary Claire Mortel, and Cesar Valiente all received individual memorandum despite their being identified as supporter of the appeliee, because of their actions in violation of the standards, orders, ana circulars from the Local Chief Executive. There were municipal employees of San Andres, Romblon like John Benedict A. Fabella, Harry G. Pagayonan, Hernan S. Reyes, Ma Corazon M, Gala, Mary Sol G. Madaiang, Jumito C. Galin, and Joel D. Mingoa, who were identified as political supporters of former Mayor Galicia, Jr. also received unsatisfactory rates atso, but after being advised to make up or improved their performance, were able to do so and thus, were given due consideration and, were given satisfactory ratings and were not dropped from the roll. At any rate, appellee has been fair with all the LGU employees regardless of their political affiliation to the extent of even reminding them not to be involved in polities x x x; “In addition to that, even Froilan M. Minon, the brother-in-law of the complainant Rommel Mayor, attested that appellee was fair in his 5dealings with LGU employees and never neglected to provide necessary benefits due the employees in accordance with the prescribed rules; WHETHER OR NOT APPELLEES MAYOR FERNALD ROVILLOS AND | HON. DENY GURO__ VIOLATED SECTIONS 94 AND 95 OF REPUBLIC ACT 7610, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES? “Appellants contended also that herein appellees violated the | provisions of Sections 94 and 93 of the Local Government Code of 1991 when appellee Mayor Rovillos designated Appellee Guro as the Municipal | Administrator while acting as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres, Romblon, and therefore must be administratively penalized; “x x x it is bear stressing that this was the same argument interposed by the appellant's in their complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman which is still pending before the said up to now, and therefore, the said case constitutes a valid prejudicial question or, forum- | shopping in this case; photocopy of their complaint before the said office | is hereto attached as Annexes and form part of this appellees’ brief; “Be that as it may, this argument of the appellant's is without any factual and legal basis because, the designation of appellee Guro is only ‘on a temporary basis, and without any extra compensation while acting as such, In fact, his name does not appear in the plantilla or lists of RS municipal employees as Acting Municipal Administrator and, there is also g a wanting of any budgetary appropriation for this office. Moreover, since a = local government unit exercises iocal autonomy (unlike the national government), any member of the Sangeuniang Bayan could be designated in a temporary capacity as the Acting Municipal Mayor whenever the municipal Mayor whenever the Municipal mayor is not around or is on leave or travel. That designation is not incompatible with his office or position as a Sangguniang bayan member; WHETHER OR NOT APPELLEES’ COMMITTED VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. _6713 ON PHICAL, CONDUCT. OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES? “Appellants argued that appellees allegedly committed violations of Sec. 4 pars. (a), (c), and (d) of RA 6713, Ethical Conduct of Public Officials and Employees for undue discriminations in deploying un- supporters to jobs not performed by them more than ten (10) years thereby sacrificing good performance to political agenda to the prejudice of the public;“But their argument is without any basis. Going over to their (appellant’s) job description, it would appear that appellants’ duties and functions are as follows. 1. Maintenance of cleanliness of all Municipal Government Building, Municipal Street, and drainage/guters Municipal Plaza and recreation ‘facilities, public orbit, publie slaughter house, astrodome, and others; 2. Implementation of the cleaning and greening program specifically planting of trees, ornaments, flowers, and other beautification plants; 3. Perform janitorial and messengerial jobs: 4. Does other related works/ understanding as maybe directed by higher authorities. Noa “Thus, when the appellants were made to work on that job described in their job description for two (2) hours a day only, simply because they could not perform well in other jobs directed to them by former Mayor Galicia, Jr., appellants cannot complain that they were discriminated nor complain that there was prejudice to the public “There is no violation of the doctrine of separation of powers in this case, not only because, the doctrine finds application between the “the church and the state,” or with the Office of the President versus the Congress versus the Judiciary, but also because, the Local Government Code does not prohibit this kind of situation. Be it reminded that when the Municipal Mayor is out of the municipality, or is on leave, or on travel, he could designate the Vice Mayor (who is the Presiding Officer of the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan) or any meniber/s of the Sangguniang Bayan to act as Acting Municipal Mayor with the same powers and duties of the Municipal Mayor but as Municipal Administrator only, on a temporary basis, without being paid of extra-compensation, and without any budgetary appropriation. Under this set-up, the Municipality even benefits from the extra job performed by the appellee Guro as he is not paid of any ‘single amount for his services, “As regards the claim of the appellants that appellees “allegedly violated their basic rights and prerogatives wherein they were allegedly subjected to intense pressures, coercions, discriminations, including the deprivation of their rights for leave on emergeney cases and requiring them 10 work like laborers under the heat of the sun aside from he pressures (0 resign or retire to avoid forced termination, ” these are not only irrelevant and immaterial to their appeal. for “Illegal Termiantion/Separation from Service "but also self-serving and without any factual and legat basis so to speak. Hence, it should be disregarded or ignored. roEssentially, the main issue to be resolved in this present controversy is whether Macuha et al. were illegally terminated. This Office, after a cautious review of the allegations and documents presented by the parties, rules in the affirmative. For a better understanding of the instant case and before arriving at the penultimate disposition, a clear evaluation of the arguments of the parties and the evidence they presented are inevitable. The undisputed fact which both parties admitted is that Macuha et al. were separated from the service because they obtained two (2) successive unsatisfactory performance ratings. In view thereof, they were separated from the service of the Local Government Unit of San Andres, Romblon effective January 31, 2017. Dropping from the rolls means separation from the serviec. Macuha et al. had been dropped from tHe rolls by Mayor Rovillos pursuant to Section 93 (b) Rule 19 of CSC Resolution No, 1101502 promulgated on November 8, 20117, thus: “Section 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. - Officers and employees who are either habitually absent or have unsatisfactory or poor performance or have shown to be physically and mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls subject to the following procedures (underscoring ours rxx “b, Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance 1. An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. Notice shall mean thet the officer or employee concerned is_informed_in writing of his/her unsatisfactory performance for a semester and is sufficiently warned that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his/ her separation fiom the service. Such notice shall be given not Jater than thirty (30) days from the end of the semester and shall contain sufficient information which shall enable the official or employee to prepare an explanation. In this light, Article IX (B), Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that "[nJo officer or emiployee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.” Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Tria v. Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas” has ruled that the prohibition in Article IX (B) (2) (3) of the Constitution is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires that the dismissal comes only after notice and hearing, while substantive due process requires that the dismissal be "for cause." (GR. No. 85670, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 833) ' Revised Role Administrative Case inthe Chil Service IRRACCS) ‘GR. No, 85670, July 31,1991, 199 SCRA 833. 8 coPY AENTO t CERTIFE! BEVERLY.From the said provision and clarification of the Supreme Court, a government ‘employee can be considered to have been illegally dismissed if he/she is removed or suspended without cause or even if with cause but without notice and hearing, Insofar as substantive due process is concemed, the dismissal is “for cause as there are two (2) successive unsatisfactory performance ratings. However, worthy of consideration is the fact that the separation was made summarily, without due process. For this reason the rule should be strictly construed in order that it may not be used as a too! for harassment, vindietiveness or removal of any employee who happens to fall out of grace of her/his supervisor or superior officers. Thus, before the dropping from the rolls can be affected, it is imperative that the following requisites should be complied with: a) the employee concerned should be informed of his/her unsatisfactory performance for a semester, b) such notice shall be in writing; ©) the same must be made within thirty (30) days from the end of the semester when the first unsatisfactory rating was given; d) the notice should contain a warning that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his separation from the service; and ©) the notice shall contain sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation In the instant case, the notice required by law was not given to Macuha et al. They were not given notice afier the rating of unsatisfactory during the second (2")t semester of 2015 (July to December 2015). Due notice means that the officer or employee concerned is informed in writing of his/her unsatisfactory performance and is sufficiently warned that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his/her separation from the service. The notice shall be given not later than thirty (30) days from the end of the semester and shall contain sufficient information which shall enable the official or employee to prepare an explanation. Here, the notice was after two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory ratings given to Macuba etal. as presented in a table format, to wit: Period of Rating | Summoned/Letter/Verbal 5 ee ae Lee Jean T. Crisostomo | July to December 2015 | Summoned on June 24-25, Laborer I (SG 1) (2% semester of 2015) _| 2016 for her Unsatisfactory January to June 2016 Rating’ er (1% semester of 2016) _ Marisa 0. Dalino July to December 2015 | On September 14, 2016, she Laborer I (SG 1) (2% semester of 2015) received a letter from the January to June 2016 Performance Management (1 semester of 2016) ‘Team (PMT) for the period covering July to December 2 ee 2015 and January to June | > Appeal Memorandum page 3, third paragraph CERTIFIED Y -BEVERL Nieto ‘AnMOY BE"2016 for Unsatisfactory i | Rating = Rumel Mayor — Fuly to December 2015 | On August 18, 2016, he was Laborer 1 (SG 1) (2 semester of 2015) _| informed that his Individual | January to June 2016 Performance Commitment (1* semester of 2016) Review (IPCR) had a rating _of Unsatisfactory’ Myla H. Galang july to December 2015 | Received on January 24, 2017 Laborer I (SG 1) (2™ semester of 2015) _| Memo Order No, 2017-006 January to June 2016 issued on the same date informing her separation from ___the service.” Lyn M.Macuha | July to December 2015 | On September 2016 received Clerk 1(SG4) | ~ January to June 2016 | a letter from the Performance (1 semester of 2016) | Management Team (PMT) for the period covering July to December 2015 and January to June 2016 for Unsatisfactory Rating” Salvie S. Balog July to December 2015 ‘On September 7.2016 | Clerk I (SG 4) (2™ semester of 2015) _| received a letter from the January to June 2016 | Performance Management (1 semester of 2016) Team (PMT) for the period covering July to December 2015 and January to June | | 2016 for Unsatisfactory | Rating Julita G. Obrique July to December 2015 Received on January 27, 2017 Laborer I (SG 1) Ge semester of 2015) Memo Order No. 2017-004 dated January 24, 2017 informing her separation from ae me | the service.” Tanuary to Tune 2016 (1 semester of 2016) Moreover, the notice should contain sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation. This is the opportunity given the employee to explain why his/her performance dropped, if such were the fact and explain circumstances why his/her performance has deteriorated, so to speak, which might be considered by the rater. In any case, the employee is given the opportunity to improve, which is why the notice is given within thirty (30) days from the end of the rating period. so that he has sufficient time to do better and enhance his/her performance at the succeeding period ** Appeal Memorandum page 5, third paragraph * Appeal Memorandum page 6, second paragraph * Annex “PP” Appeal Memorandum ‘Appeal Memorandum page 7, 5® paragraph "Appeal Memorandum page 8, second paragraph * Appeal Memorandum page 9, No. 10 10 COPY CERTIFH ANENTO oe BEVERLY ‘Aniais was not done in this case. On the contrary, the first unsatisfactory rating was obviously withheld from Macuha et al until they incurred a second unsatisfactory rating. The written notice was made the following year for the period July 2015 to December 2015, which is way beyond the 30-day period required by the rules. Under the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 1200481'° dated March 16, 2012, the individual performance of each employees helps contribute to the attainment of the mission, vision and strategic goal of the agency. It is a mechanism that ensures the employee achieves the objectives set by the organization. On the other hand, the organization achieves the objective that it has set itself in its strategic plan, However, if an employee w: performance rating, this is in violati 5 not given a first notice after her/his unsatisfactory n of his/her right to due process. Finally, let it be stressed that dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary Thus, it does not result in the forfeiture of any benefits nor disqualification from re- employment in the government (Section 96, Rule 19, RRACCS) Indeed, Macuha et al separation was made with utter lack of due process. Macuha et al. should not be denied their right to their job for failure of Mayor Rovillos and Guro to comply with the requirements provided by law. As the Supreme Court ruled, it is bad enough to lose a job; it is worse if it is taken away by government itself without due process of law. Our Constitution abhors such arbitrariness. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal of Macuha et al, all Laborer I, of the Local Goverment Unit (LGU) of San Andres, Romblon is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Memorandum No. 2017-004 issued by Mayor Femald G. Rovillos, same LGU, dropping them from the rolls for obtaining two (2) successive unsatisfactory performance ratings, is hereby declared not valid. Accordingly, the Municipal Government of San Andres, Romblon is hereby ordered to reinstate and pay Appellants Macua et al. theirr back wages and other benefits, computed from January 31, 2017 until their actual reinstatement in their respective positions, same municipal government. Let copies of this Decision be furnished Lyn M. Macuha, Salvie S. Balog, Jean T. Crisosto, Marissa O. Dalino, Julita G. Obrique, Myla H. Galang, and Rumel S. Mayor, Mayor Femald G. Rovillos, Deny H. Guro, the HRMO of Municipal Government of San Andres, Romblon, and the CSC FO-Romblon, at their known addresses. ea ee BERK Director IV Quezon City. KLPIASPT/OGN/O81 MACUHA, Lyn Met 'N0#20012117 (LS03101706), ‘Guidelines in the Establishment and inplenention of Agency Sratesic Perrmance Manageme Stem (SPMS) Ml