G.R. No. 154095 - FRANCISCO C. ROSALES, JR., VS. MIGUEL H. MIJARES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Miguel H. Mijares is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mayor Francisco C. Rosales, Jr. is directed to immediately reinstate Mijares to his former position of Municipal Engineer and to cause the payment of all his salaries and other benefits from the date of his unlawful separation from the service up to his actual reinstatement. [3] The CSC held that the respondent did not freely and voluntarily seek permission from the petitioner to transfer to another office and that based on the record, the supposed transfer of the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer was a shrewd machination or clever ploy resorted to by the petitioner to oust the respondent from his position as Municipal Engineer; hence, such transfer was illegal. The CSC cited the rulings of this Court in Sta. Maria v. Lopez [4] and Divinagracia, Jr. v. Sto. Tomas . [5] The CSC also ruled that a request for transfer, under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 98-38, must be in writing; and that even assuming that a verbal request for transfer may be made, the petitioner failed to adduce any proof that the respondent made such verbal request, as well as the date of the effectivity of the transfer. The CSC cited its ruling in CSC Resolution No. 99-1616 dated July 20, 1999. The CSC declared that the letter of the petitioner to the respondent dated August 12, 1998 was but a detail of the respondent to the Office of the Provincial Engineer. The petitioners motion for a reconsideration of the resolution was denied by the CSC per its Resolution No. 992130. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for review with the CA assailing the resolutions of the CSC. On December 20, 2001, the CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition and affirming the resolutions of the CSC. The appellate court affirmed in toto not only the finding of the CSC, but also its rulings on the issues raised by the petitioner. The CA also held that: Well-settled is the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence (Lo vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 190). We see no cogent reason to depart from said principle. It is also noteworthy that the ground relied upon to justify respondents removal, i.e., expiration of his permit to transfer, is purely technical and, therefore, too flimsy to override the constitutional mandate upholding an employees right to security of tenure (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2, par. 3, 1987 Constitution). As held in Divinagracia, Jr. vs. Sto. Tomas (244 SCRA 595), the guarantee of security of tenure is an important object of the civil service system because it affords a faithful employee permanence of employment, at least for the period prescribed by law, and frees the employee from the fear of political and personal prejudicial reprisal. [6] The petitioners motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the appellate court. The petitioner filed his petition for revi