MA. LOURDES T.

DOMINGO, petitioner,
vs.
ROGELIO I. RAYALA, respondent.

G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008

FACTS:

Rogelio Rayala was an appointee by the President of the Philippines as the

Chairman of the NLRC. Meanwhile, Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo was a Stenographic
Reporter III at the same office. Domingo filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against
Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). She supplied an affidavit containing her narration of events to
support her claim. She filed the Complaint for sexual harassment on the basis of
Administrative Order No. 250, the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7877 in the
Department of Labor and Employment. DOLE Secretary referred the Complaint to the
Office of the President (OP). The OP, through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora,
ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations. The Office of the President,
having found that the allegations were true, found Rayala guilty and DISMISSED him from
his office.
Upon raising the appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by the
OP. Instead of dismissal, it imposed the penalty of suspension for 1 year, as it is the
proper penalty stated in Administrative Order 250.
Domingo assailed the CA’s resolution. She argues that the power to remove
Rayala, who is a presidential appointee, is lodged with the President.

ISSUE:
Can the President use his power to remove appointees in the case at bar?

RULING:
No. The President cannot instantly remove Rayala from office.
Under the Labor Code, the Chairman of the NLRC “shall hold office during good
behavior until he or she reaches the age of sixty-five, unless sooner removed for cause
as provided by law or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties of the office.” It is
evident that the power of the President to remove someone from office is qualified by the
phrase "for cause as provided by law." Thus, when the OP found that Rayala was guilty
of the crime charged, the Chief Executive did not have unrestricted discretion to impose
a penalty other than the penalty provided by law for such offense. The imposable penalty
for the first offense of either the administrative offense of sexual harassment or for
disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1) year. Thus, it was error for the Office of the President to impose upon Rayala the
penalty of dismissal from the service, a penalty which can only be imposed upon
commission of a second offense.