G.R. NO. 166797 - JOSE M. GALARIO, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO) AND RUTH P. PIANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant appeal is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mayor Galario is ordered to reinstate Ms. Piano to her previous position as City Budget Officer and to cause the payment of her RATA from the time she was deprived of it until her reinstatement. x x x. [4] Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Order which was denied by the CSC-Regional Office in another Order dated 18 February 2002. Petitioner, hence, appealed the Orders of the CSC-Regional Office dated 7 January 2002 and 18 February 2002 to the CSC-Main Office, which subsequently dismissed said appeal in Resolution No. 030096 dated 21 January 2003. In Resolution No. 030544 dated 5 May 2003, the CSC denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed CSC Resolution No. 03-0096 dated 21 January 2003 [5] : WHEREFORE, the appeal of Valencia City Mayor Jose M. Galario, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED. Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. X Orders dated January 7, 2002 and February 18, 2002 declaring the Office of the Mayor Orders both dated July 2, 2001 null and void, stand. Accordingly, Ruth P. Piano is reinstated to her former position as City Budget Officer. [6] Private respondent subsequently moved for the execution of CSC Resolution No. 030544 dated 5 May 2003 affirming CSC Resolution No. 030096 dated 21 January 2003. Even before the CSC could act on private respondent's motion for execution, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 07-55 dated 25 July 2003, ordering private respondent to be reinstated to her former position of City Budget Officer with the grant of benefits [7] appurtenant to the said position, supposedly in compliance with CSC Resolution No. 03-0096 dated 21 January 2003. Much later, however, petitioner, in another letter dated 28 July 2003, [8] instructed private respondent not to involve herself in the signing of documents relating to the city's financial transactions, citing her pending case [9] with the Office of the Ombudsman. The task was given to Mr. Bartolome Barte, who was authorized to sign "For the City Budget Officer" in the financial transactions of the city. In Memorandum Order No. 07-65 dated 30 July 2003, petitioner directed private respondent to transfer office from the City Hall Main Building to the Sangguniang Kabataan Building. Meanwhile, petitioner formally asked the opinion of the CSC-Regional Office on whether or not he could legally prohibit private respondent from signing documents relating to the financial transactions of the city. In a letter dated 6 October 2003 addressed to petitioner, the CSC-Regional Office opined that considering that the Office of the Ombudsman had dismissed the administrative case against private respondent, there was no more legal impediment to her reinstatement as City Budget Officer as well as in the performance of her duties as such . [10] Thereafter, private respondent filed with the CSC a second Motion for Execution of its Resolution No. 030096 dated 21 Janua