CERILLES v. CSC  1.

RA  8973  entitled  "An  Act  creating  the  Province  of  Zamboanga  Sibugay  from  the 
Province  of  Zamboanga  del  Sur and for other purposes" was passed. Because of this, 
GR 180845 | Nov. 22, 2017 | Power to create public office and reorganize | Reina   the  Internal  Revenue  Allotment  (IRA) of the province of Zamboanga del Sur (province) 
was reduced by 36%.  
Petitioner: GOV. AURORA E. CERILLES 
2. Because  of  such  reduction,  Gov.  Cerilles,  sought the opinion of CSC on the possibility 
Respondent:  CIVIL  SERVICE  COMMISSION,  ANITA  JANGAD-CHUA,  MA.  EDEN  S. 
of  reducing  the  workforce  of  the  provincial  government.  The  CSC  opined that should 
TAGAYUNA,  MERIAM  CAMPOMANES,  BERNADETTE  P.  QUIRANTE,  MA.  DELORA  P. 
there  be  reorganization,  it  must  be  authorized  by  a  Sangguniang  Panlalawigan  (SP) 
FLORES AND EDGAR PARAN 
resolution.  
 
3. The  SP  of  the  province  then  passed resolutions approving the new staffing pattern of 
Recit-Ready:   
the  provincial  government  consisting  only  of  727  positions  and  which  authorized 
RA  8973  entitled  "An  Act  creating  the  Province of Zamboanga Sibugay from the Province of 
petitioner  to  undertake  the  reorganization  of  the  provincial  government  and  to 
Zamboanga  del  Sur"  was  passed.  Because  of  this,  the  Internal  Revenue  Allotment  of  the 
implement the new staffing pattern. 
Province  of  Zamboanga  del  Sur  (province)  was  reduced.  Pursuant  to  a  Sangguniang 
4. Gov.  Cerilles  appointed  employees  to  the new positions in the provincial government. 
Panlalawigan  resolution  approving  the  provincial  government’s  new  staffing  pattern,  Gov. 
The  private respondents were among those who were occupying permanent positions 
Cerilles  appointed  employees  to  the  new  positions.  Respondents  alleged  that  they  used  to 
in  the  old  plantilla  and  have  been  in  the  service  for  a  long  time  but  were  not  given 
occupy  permanent  positions  in  the  old  plantilla  but  they  were  terminated  without  valid 
placement  preference  and  were  instead  terminated  without  valid  cause  and  against 
cause. 
their will.  
 
5. The  CSC  Regional  Office  (CSCRO)  invalidated 96 appointments made by Gov. Cerilles 
The issue in this case is w/n the reorganization was tainted with bad faith. (YES) 
but the latter claimed that the CSCRO had no authority to revoke the appointments. 
 
6. The CSC upheld the CSCRO’s invalidation of the appointments. 
Reorganization​ is a recognized valid ground for separation of civil service employees, 
7. Gov.  Cerilles  brought  the  case  up  to  the  CA through a petition for certiorari where the 
subject only to the condition that it be done in good faith. However, there is a strong 
latter denied such petition because it was a wrong mode of review.  
indication that the reorganization in this case w ​ as motivated not solely by the interest of 
economy and efficiency, but as a systematic means to circumvent the security of tenure ​of 
ISSUES: 
the employees affected because the 96 appointments violated the rule on preference and 
non-hiring of new employees. 
Whether  or  not  the  reorganization  of  the  Province  of  Zamboanga del Sur was tainted with 
 
bad faith. (YES) 
Respondents were replaced by either new employees or those holding lower positions in the 
old staffing pattern which goes against RA 6656 which provides that officers and employees 
RATIO: 
holding permanent appointments in the old staffing pattern shall be given preference for 
 
appointment and that no new employees shall be taken in until all permanent officers and 
RA 6656 provides that: 
employees have been appointed unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily 
1. An officer or employee may be validly removed from service pursuant to a bona fide 
confidential, or highly technical in nature. To add, the positions of Respondents were not 
reorganization; in such case, there is no violation of security of tenure and the 
even abolished.  
aggrieved employee has no cause of action against the appointing authority. 
 
2. If, on the other hand, the reorganization is done in bad faith, as when the enumerated 
Doctrine: 
circumstances in Section 2 are present, the aggrieved employee, having been 
As a general rule, a r​ eorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of 
removed without valid cause, may demand for his reinstatement or reappointment.  
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient​. In that event no dismissal or separation 
3. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments in the old staffing pattern 
actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. If the abolition which is nothing 
shall be given preference for appointment to the new positions in the approved 
else but a separation or removal, is done for political reason or purposely to defeat security 
staffing pattern, which shall be comparable to their former position or in case there 
of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever 
are not enough comparable positions, to positions next lower in rank.  
abolition is done is void ab initio.  
4. No new employees shall be taken in until all permanent officers and employees have 
been appointed unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or 
FACTS:  highly technical in nature. 
  Second, respondents were r​ eplaced by either new employees or those holding lower 
Appointment, by its very nature, is a highly discretionary act. As an exercise of political  positions in the old staffing pattern​ — circumstances that may be properly appreciated as 
discretion, the appointing authority is afforded a wide latitude in the selection of personnel  evidence of bad faith pursuant to Section 2 and Section 4 of RA 6656. Significantly, Gov. 
in his department or agency and seldom questioned, the same being a matter of wisdom  Cerilles plainly admitted that new employees were indeed hired after the reorganization. 
and personal preference. In certain occasions, however, the selection of the appointing   
authority is subject to review by respondent CSC as the central personnel agency of the  Third, ​the positions of Respondents were not even abolished​. However, instead of giving 
Government. The Court has ruled that the only function of the CSC is merely to ascertain  life to the clear mandate of RA 6656 on preference, Gov. Cerilles terminated respondents 
whether the appointee possesses the minimum requirements under the law; if it is so, then  from the service and forthwith appointed other employees in their stead. Neither did Gov. 
the CSC has no choice but to attest to such appointment.  Cerilles, at the very least, demote them to lesser positions if indeed there was a reduction 
  in the number of positions corresponding to Respondents' previous positions. 
Reorganization​ is a recognized valid ground for separation of civil service employees,   
subject only to the condition that it be done in good faith. No less than the Constitution  The CSCRO also previously ruled that the reorganization was done in bad faith and said 
itself in Section 16 of the Transitory Provisions, together with Sections 33 and 34 of  that, “First, the appellants are all qualified for their respective positions. Second, they are 
Executive Order No. 81 and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656, support this conclusion  all permanent employees. Third, their positions have not been abolished. And fourth, they 
with the declaration that all those not so appointed in the implementation of said  were either replaced by those holding lower positions prior to reorganization or worse by 
reorganization shall be deemed separated from the service with the concomitant  new employees. In fine, a valid cause for removal does not exist in any of their cases.” 
recognition of their entitlement to appropriate separation benefits and/or retirement plans   
of the reorganized government agency.  Therefore, respondents are entitled to no less than reinstatement to their former positions 
  without loss of seniority rights and shall be entitled to full backwages from the time of 
As a general rule, a r​ eorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of  their separation until actual reinstatement; or, in the alternative, in case they have already 
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient​. In that event no dismissal or separation  compulsorily retired during the pendency of this case, they shall be awarded the 
actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case the security of  corresponding retirement benefits during the period for which they have been retired. 
tenure would not be a Chinese wall. If the abolition which is nothing else but a separation   
or removal, is done for political reason or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or  As to the incumbents who were appointed after the reorganization in place of 
otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever abolition is done is  Respondents, there was technically no vacancy to which they could have been appointed 
void ab initio. There is an invalid abolition as where there is merely a change of  as a result of the illegal termination of Respondents. No person, no matter how qualified 
nomenclature of positions or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of  and eligible for a certain position, may be appointed to an office which is not yet vacant. 
ample funds. 
 
Good faith is always presumed. Thus, to successfully impugn the validity of a 
reorganization — and correspondingly demand for reinstatement or reappointment — the 
aggrieved officer or employee has the burden to prove the existence of bad faith. 
 
The court ruled that the reorganization of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur was tainted 
with bad faith for the following reasons: 
  
First, the sheer number of appointments found to be violative of RA 6656 is astounding. As 
initially observed by the CSCRO, no less than 96 of the appointments made by Gov. Cerilles 
violated the rule on preference and non-hiring of new employees. While the relative scale of 
invalidated appointments does not conclusively rule out good faith, there is, at the very 
least, a strong indication that the reorganization w​ as motivated not solely by the interest 
of economy and efficiency, but as a systematic means to circumvent the security of 
tenure ​of the 96 employees affected.