7/31/2019 1 Naldtra v Csc

1/1

1

G.R. No. 84301. April 7, 1993.

NATIONAL LAND TITLES AND DEEDSREGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION, petitioner,vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and VIOLETA L.GARCIA, respondents.

NATUREPetition assails the validity of CSC Resolution No. 2directing that private respondent Garcia be restored toher position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or itsequivalent in the NALTDRA

FACTSIn 1977, Garcia, a law graduate and a first grade civilservice eligible was appointed Deputy Register of DeedsVII, and later III, under permanent status. She was fortwo years designated as Acting Branch Register ofDeeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan.

By virtue of EO No. 649 (which took effect on February9, 1981) which authorized the restructuring of the LandRegistration Commission to NALDTRA, Garcia wasappointed Deputy Register of Deeds II on October 1,1984, under temporary status, for not being a member ofthe Philippine Bar. Her appeal to the Secretary of Justicewas denied, and her MR remained unacted. G arciastemporary appointment was renewed in 1985.

On October 23, 1984, Garcia was administrativelycharged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest ofthe Service. In October 30, 1986, Garcia was terminatedon the ground that she was "receiving bribe money."

CSC Resolution No. 2 directed that Garcia be restored

to her position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or itsequivalent in the NALTDRA. It held that under thevested right theory the new requirement would notapply to Garcia but only to the filling up of vacant lawyerpositions on or after February 9, 1981, the date said EOtook effect.

ISSUEWON membership in the bar, the qualificationrequirement under Section 4 of EO No. 649 reorganizingthe LRC into the NALDTRA, applies only to newapplicants and not to those who were already in theservice of the LRC.

HELD: NO. Qualification of membership in the bar alsoapplies to those already in the service of the LRC at thetime of issuance of EO 649

RATIO EO 649 expressly provided the abolition of

existing positions . Thus, without need of anyinterpretation, the law mandates that from themoment an implementing order is issued, allpositions in the LRC are deemed non-existent.

This, however, does not mean removal. Abolition ofa position does not involve or mean removal for thereason that removal implies that the post subsistsand that one is merely separated therefrom. (Araovs. Luspo, 20 SCRA 722 [1967]) After abolition,there is in law no occupant. Thus, there can be notenure to speak of. It is in this sense that from thestandpoint of strict law, the question of anyimpairment of security of tenure does not arise. (Dela Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 [1982])

Abolition of an office within the competence of alegitimate body if done in good faith suffers fromno infirmity . Two questions therefore arise: (1) wasthe abolition carried out by a legitimate body?; and(2) was it done in good faith?

EO No. 649 was enacted to improve the servicesand better systematize the operation of the LRC. Areorganization is carried out in good faith if it is forthe purpose of economy or to make bureaucracymore efficient. To this end, the requirement of barmembership to qualify for key positions in theNALTDRA was imposed to meet the changingcircumstances and new development of the times.

Private respondent Garcia did not have suchqualification thus she cannot hold any key position inthe NALTDRA. The additional qualification was notintended to remove her from office but a criterionimposed concomitant with a valid reorganizationmeasure.

No such thing as a vested interest or an estate inan office, or even an absolute right to hold it

Except constitutional offices which provide forspecial immunity as regards salary and tenure, noone can be said to have any vested right in an officeor its salary. None of the exceptions to this rule areobtaining in this case.