G.R. No. 174244 - MAYOR MARCEL S. PAN, REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR AS MAYOR, VS. YOLANDA O. PEÑA, MARIVIC P. ENCISO, MELINDA S. CANTOR, ROMEO ASOR AND EDGAR A. ENCISO.,D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby granted. The Commission rules that the separation of herein appellants , except Aurora Pacis, was in violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6656 . Accordingly, Yolanda O. Peña, Marivic Enciso, Melinda Cantor, Romeo Asor and Edgar Enciso shall be reinstated or reappointed to their former positions or their equivalent under the new staffing pattern without loss of seniority rights and shall be paid backwages from the time they were separated until their actual reinstatement. Aurora Pacis' non-appointment was, however, justified. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Via Motion for Reconsideration, [11] the mayor adduced additional evidence and grounds in support of his decision not to appoint respondents, such as Peña's poor job performance as former waterworks supervisor resulting in financial losses; Cantor's lack of actual experience in the work of a revenue collections clerk; and Marivic's, Asor's and Enciso's failure to submit their respective performance evaluation reports for them to be considered by the Placement Committee, as well as their questionable promotions to their last stated positions. And the mayor informed: When the present administration reorganized, the most affected department was the Municipal Treasurer's Office where Melinda Cantor, Romeo Asor and Marivic Enciso belonged to make the local treasury more viable. From twenty-seven (27) employees, this department was reduced to nine (9) employees . Another office affected heavily by the reorganization is the Waterworks operation where Yolanda Pe[ñ]a and Edgar Enciso were formerly connected. From eight (8) employees, this office was trimmed down to two (2) employees . (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution No. 000617, [12] he went up to the Court of Appeals for recourse. In sustaining the CSC, the appellate court, by Decision [13] of July 14, 2005, took note of why the new positions were filled up by others "who are less preferred or qualified in terms of status of appointment, training, education and length of service," [14] instead of by respondents who were holding permanent positions. Reconsideration of the appellate court's Decision having been denied by Resolution [15] of August 14, 2006, the present petition was filed by the mayor "representing the municipality of Goa" (hereafter petitioner) on the following contentions: I THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. II THE PRINCIPLE OF FINALITY OF FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRST APPLIED TO THE DECISION OF THE PLACEMENTS BOARD . (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner insists that all those retained in the reorganization are permanent employees holding permanent positions who are equally, if not better, qualified compared with respondents. [16] And he questions the conflicting actions of the CSC when it still o