0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
438 visualizzazioni2 pagine
This document summarizes a court case from 1991 regarding the reassignment of Agda from his position as Acting Regional Administrator of FIDA Regions 1 and 2. The key facts are that Agda was temporarily reassigned by Lanuza in 1987 and Teotico then placed Agda on preventive suspension in 1988 and charged him with misconduct. The court ultimately held that Agda's reassignment was valid because his appointment was acting/temporary in nature and terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority, even if the reassignment occurred close to an election. Civil service rules and decrees allow for preventive suspension of employees charged with misconduct.
This document summarizes a court case from 1991 regarding the reassignment of Agda from his position as Acting Regional Administrator of FIDA Regions 1 and 2. The key facts are that Agda was temporarily reassigned by Lanuza in 1987 and Teotico then placed Agda on preventive suspension in 1988 and charged him with misconduct. The court ultimately held that Agda's reassignment was valid because his appointment was acting/temporary in nature and terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority, even if the reassignment occurred close to an election. Civil service rules and decrees allow for preventive suspension of employees charged with misconduct.
This document summarizes a court case from 1991 regarding the reassignment of Agda from his position as Acting Regional Administrator of FIDA Regions 1 and 2. The key facts are that Agda was temporarily reassigned by Lanuza in 1987 and Teotico then placed Agda on preventive suspension in 1988 and charged him with misconduct. The court ultimately held that Agda's reassignment was valid because his appointment was acting/temporary in nature and terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority, even if the reassignment occurred close to an election. Civil service rules and decrees allow for preventive suspension of employees charged with misconduct.
January 2, 1984 Cesar Lanuza, administrator of the Fiber Development Authority (FIDA) Department of Agriculture (DA), appointed Agda as Chief Fiber Development Officer. Lanuza issued Special Order No. 29 designating Agda as Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II.
November 13, 1987 Lanuza issued Special Order No. 219, temporarily re-assigning Agda to the main office of the Administrator, and a certain Epitacio Lanuza, Jr. was designated officer-in-charge of FIDA Region 1.
December 9, 1987 Agda prepared to file a petition to stop the implementation of Special Order No. 219 with the CSC, Secretary of DA, and COA on the following grounds: 1. It is devoid of legal basis as it does not preserve and maintain a status quo before the controversy 2. It is against the interest of public service because Epitacio Lanuza has been cited in two cases involving dishonesty, abuse of privileges and character unbecoming of a government official 3. His re-assignment was improper, inappropriate and devoid of moral justification 4. Designating Epitacio to such position amounts to nepotism because he and Cesar Lanuza are cousins.
April 4 1988 Teotico, Acting Administrator of FIDA Region 1, placed Agda in preventive suspension and charged him with conduct prejudicial to the interest of public service and insubordination. Teotico also alleged that Agda never showed up in the Office of the Administrator.
Agdas petition was granted. Consequently, Teotico filed an appeal accusing the judge of grave abuse of discretion for granting Agdas petition and ordering the latters reinstatement.
Issue: W/N Agdas re-assignment was valid
Held: YES. Agda was appointed as ACTING Regional Administrator, but he was not appointed to a specific station. Enunciating the rule in Cuadra vs. Cordova, temporary appointments or those in acting capacity are terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
Unfortunately, Agda was not able to avail of his remedy under Section 6 of Rule VI of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies. Section 6 provides that: Except when the exigencies of the service require, an official or employee of the government may not be ordered detailed or reassigned during the three-month period before any local or national election, and if he believes that the order for his detail or reassignment is due to harassment, coercion, intimidation, or other personal reasons, he may appeal the order to the Commission. Until this is proven, however, the order is presumed to be in the interest of the service and notwithstanding the appeal, the decision to detail or reassign him shall be executory, but the Commission may order deferment of suspension of the detail or reassignment ex parte."
PD 807 (Civil Service Decree) also allows preventive suspension for officers or employees who have been charged with dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charged which would warrant his removal from the service.
CITIZEN J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, and THE NATIONAL TREASURER