BIR Ruling [UN-026-94]

January 25, 1994 BIR RULING [UN-026-94] 2nd Indorsement Returned to the Officer-in-Charge Personnel Division, the within papers bearing on the claim for optional retirement benefits of Mr. Anonas. The records show that Mr. Raymundo Anonas has rendered continuous service in the Bureau from December 7, 1953 to October 15, 1989 or a period of 35 years, 10 months and 8 days; that he was first appointed as Revenue Messenger, then as Storekeeper, Distillery Agent, Revenue Examiner, Revenue Enforcement Officer and then as Revenue Officer Ii when he optionally retired; that the last item/appointment given him was Revenue Enforcement Officer II requires a first grade eligibility; that he is a civil service eligible (both second grade and first grade, 1950; that he is a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, B.A. degree holder (1963-1972). On December 1, 1987 he was proposed for the position of Senior Enforcement Officer but was disapproved by the Civil Service Commission on August 16, 1988 because his CPA eligibility under RA 1080 was fake; that his appointment paper was returned to the Bureau on August 15, 1989; that the Chief, Personnel Division, Mrs. Rizalina V. Licopit, in her first Indorsement dated September 4, 1989 referred to the Chief, Internal Security Division (ISD), xerox copy of the proposed appointment of Mr. Raymundo A. Anonas as Senior Revenue Enforcement Officer under Executive Order No. 127, which was disapproved by the Civil Service Commission because his CPA eligibility is fake; that ISD in its memo dated November 14, 1989 had an investigation conducted, which revealed that Mr. Anonas had requested for an optional retirement effective October 15, 1989, which was approved by then Commissioner Jose U. Ong upon recommendation of Deputy Commissioner Victor A. Deoferio, Jr.; that the said memorandum of ISD further recommended that the case be considered moot and academic considering that Mr. Anonas is no longer within the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau and that there was no criminal or administrative charge filed against him. In the public service, the matter of discipline is regulated by the Constitution, by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations and related statutes, by Administrative and Executive Orders, and pertinent decisions of American and Philippine Court. Our Civil Service Rules provide that no officer or employee shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under it or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of Mr. Anonas, his optional retirement was approved by then Commissioner U. Ong because there was no pending case against him at the time he opted to retire optionally, as certified to by the inspection Service. When the Civil Service Commission disapproved the appointment of Mr. Anonas on ground of fake eligibility, it is for this Office to determine or initiate a case against him if at all. Pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Civil Service laws and Rules (Book V of Executive Order 292 and Omnibus Rules) the Secretaries and heads of agencies, and instrumentalities, shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary actions against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. In case the decision rendered by the Bureau or office head is appealable to the Civil Service Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending approval, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the department head. This was never applied to Mr. Anonas. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, in relation to PD 807, which prescribes for the guidelines in the application of penalties in administrative cases places dishonesty under grave offenses with the corresponding penalty of dismissal from the service which carries with it the penalty of denial of retirement benefits. Since removal from an office or dismissal is in the nature of punishment, it is punitive, penal in nature and as such the officer or employee concerned is entitled to due process under our Constitution. It is provided that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law. Mr. Anonas should have been afforded due process, which in the words of Daniel Webster is one "which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Since there was no administrative case filed against Mr. Anonas, there is no justifiable reason and legal basis to deny him of his separation benefits. As held in David vs. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA, 707, a decision rendered without hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. It is, therefore, contrary to law to deprive Mr. Anonas of his separation benefits or to continue holding the same in abeyance, to which under the GSIS law and other laws, he is entitled. Moreover, the time honored principle that a man is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, should be made to apply. In view of the foregoing, and by reason of his unselfish service to the Government for more than 35 years and considering that the entitlement to separation benefits is a social legislation, this Office is of the opinion and so holds that Mr. Anonas is entitled to and should be paid/granted his separation benefits. cdtech JAIME M. MAZA Assistant Commissioner