HULLEZA v ESCALANTE
2012 | SORONGON, E.D., J.
§
Leonilo
B. Hulleza was appointed City Engineer of Cadiz City, Negros Occidental on July
1, 2001. As city engineer, he is the head of the engineering department and in
charge of all engineering and public works of the City of Cadiz.
§
April
19, 2006, Hon. Mayor of Cadiz City, Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., issued 2 memos
authorizing Melecio D. Bacomo, Jr., City Planning and Development Coordinator,
to sign documents relating to projects funded under the 20% Development Fund
and later on expanding Mr. Bacomo's authority to sign documents this includes
preparation of program, implementation and payment of all infrastructure
projects of the City regardless of the source of funds. However, the memos did
not relieve Hulleza of his duty of preparing program of work and detailed
estimate of infrastructure projects subject however to the authority of the
mayor.
§
Hulleza
questioned the payment for projects released to contractors without his
required signature on the Certificate of Completion pursuant to the memoranda
and thereafter he filed a letter-complaint against Mrs. Delilah Fernandez (City
Accountant) before the Ombudsman of Cebu City.
§
July
2, 2007, Escalante issued Memorandum Order No. 112-SGE-20075, placing Hulleza
under “floating status” citing loss of trust and confidence in Hulleza and
ordered him to cease and desist from performing his functions as city
engineer. Escalante issued another
memo on the same day designating Engineer Lauro Napud as Officer-in-Charge of
the City Engineer's Office and also entitled Napud to receive the RATA and
other benefits allotted to the City Engineer.
o
As a
result of the foregoing, Hulleza filed a complaint in the Office of the
President against Escalante for Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty and Dereliction
of Duty premised on the following grounds:
§
That
respondent unlawfully stripped him of his function as City Engineer and for placing him under floating
status
§
That
there was no basis to place him under floating status since there was no case
filed against him with the Ombudsman (cited a CSC opinion as basis)
o
Petitioner
therefore asked for his reinstatement and payment of his RATA from the time he
was placed on floating status and for the issuance of an order declaring null
and void the memos 1) placing him under floating status and 2) appointing Napud
§
Escalante’s
ANSWER - he is merely exercising his duty as Chief Executive
provided under Section 455 (b) of the LGC, which necessarily includes the exercise of
general supervision and control over all programs, projects, services, and
activities of the city government as well as to ensure that city funds are
applied to the payment of expenses and settlement of obligations of the City.
o
Re
the side issues:
§
The
legal basis for complaint is a Malversation cased filed by Escalante against
Hulleza in 2007 à Therefore “floating status” is valid - no actual performance of duties à Not entitled to RATA under DBM
National Compensation Circular 67 and RA 9401 Sec 44
§
Respondent
also pointed out that the opinion of the CSC on the legality of the floating
status is not tantamount to the adjudication of legal issues in the exercise of
its quasi-judicial power but merely an opinion based on the information
provided solely by the petitioner. Had the petitioner informed the CSC
regarding the Malversation case which the respondent had filed Against him it
would have viewed the same differently.
§
On
November 5, 2009, the Office of the President rendered the assailed Decision,
dismissing Hulleza's complaint citing failure to substantiate accusations.
ISSUE: WON the act of Mayor Escalante in placing
Hulleza on floating status constitutes abuse of authority, dishonesty and
dereliction of duty, which are grounds for disciplinary action under Section 60
of RA 7160.
HELD: Partly meritorious. Yes there was abuse of authority; No
proof of dishonesty and dereliction of duty.
Ratio:
§
Citing
Salalima vs. Guingona, Jr. - abuse of authority -"Abuse" means "to
make excessive or improper use of a thing, or to employ it in a manner contrary
to the natural or legal rules for its use. To make an extravagant or excessive
use, as to abuse one's authority" It includes "misuse"
§
Applying
the foregoing legal definition the CA found Escalante to have exceeded his
authority in issuing the Floating Status Memorandum as it is not in accordance
with the legal precepts of law.
- Violated
his security of tenure because it was not based on a just or valid cause.
Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution mandatorily dictates
that, "No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause provided by law." Article IX, Section
36 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) likewise
provides that, No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be
suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due
process.
§
Loss
of trust and confidence and the existence of a pending case are not among the
valid grounds provided by law for removing or dismissing an employee from
service.
- No
Due Process. There was no showing that he was informed of the grounds upon
which his floating assignment was based nor was he given an opportunity to
be heard before he was stripped of his official duties and functions.
- Constructive
dismissal. When petitioner was divested of his powers and functions as
City Engineer it created a situation whereby he was reduced to a mere
subordinate without any authority to supervise. This in effect resulted in
a diminution of rank and deprivation of the emoluments attached to his
former position such as his RATA.
- A
careful reading of the assailed Order reveals that the floating status of
petitioner does not contain a definite date or period of duration à this means that the duration of the floating
status is dependent solely on the discretion of Escalante.
§
Under
Section 455 of the LGC, Escalante as Mayor is vested with the authority to exercise general
supervision and control over all programs, projects, services and activities of
the City, it must be noted however that such authority should be exercised
within the bounds of the law. Although a charge of Malversation was filed
against petitioner before the Ombudsman, this alone cannot be used as
sufficient basis for the respondent to place petitioner under a floating
assignment and removed from him the duties and responsibilities of a city
engineer. Instead of issuing the Floating Status Memorandum, the most prudent
and appropriate action the respondent could have done was to place petitioner
on preventive suspension pending the trial of the malversation case he
filed pursuant to Section 8511 of the LGC. Verily, this act of respondent is
a clear unjustifiable and arbitrary use of authority vested upon him by law.
§
HOWEVER ANY PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON ESCALANTE IN THIS CASE IS MOOT AND ACADEMIC -à Salvador Escalante is no longer
the Mayor City of Cadiz by reason of the expiration of his term of office, the current Mayor of Cadiz City is Dr. Patrick G.
Escalante.
No comments:
Post a Comment