SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202433. September 5, 2012.]
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, v. DANIEL A. DIMAGIBA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 September 2012which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 202433 (Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines v. Daniel A. Dimagiba).
After a perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in ruling that the Director General of petitioner Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) does not possess disciplinary authority over respondent Deputy Director General for Operations Daniel A. Dimagiba as the same is reposed in the CAAP Board of Directors (CAAP Board) that appointed him. It is settled that the power to appoint includes the power to remove 1 except in certain instances, 2 which do not obtain here. Indeed, Section 10 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9497 (Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008) specifically excepted the two (2) Deputy Directors General of CAAP from the Director General's appointing authority and made their appointments subject to the approval of the CAAP Board.
The CAAP Board's purported ratification 3 on August 27, 2009 of the Director General's July 27, 2009 Decision was likewise inconsequential because its power to conform to decisions of the latter may only be exercised in an appeal properly taken by an interested party. Moreover, the Court notes that the Director General who filed the formal charges against respondent was the same person who created the Special Hearing and Adjudication Board, affirmed its recommendation to dismiss respondent, and participated in the ratification of his own decision, negating respondent's right to due process. aAEIHC
Consequently, respondent's reinstatement as CAAP Deputy Director General for Operations, with payment of back salaries and other benefits from the time of his dismissal until actual reinstatement, was in order.
Accordingly, the assailed February 22, 2011 Decision and June 25, 2012 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 114043 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Vide Municipality of La Libertad, Negros Oriental v. Penaflor, G.R. No. 155477, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 833, 841.
2.Such as the Members of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman who may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust; and the Judges of lower courts who are subject to discipline by the Supreme Court en banc which can order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, id.
3.Board Resolution No. 09-005, rollo, pp. 112-113.