Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines Employees Union v. Civil Aviation Authority

Facts:

Petitioner argues that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Authority Orders and Memoranda because they placed the tenure of the CAAP personnel in jeopardy in clear violation of the latter's security of tenure which is protected by the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6656; that  the Minutes of the Discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of HBN 3156 and the amendments agreed upon on "The Creation of the Civil Aviation Authority," and asserts that the real intention of R.A. No. 9497 was merely reorganization of the agency and not its entire abolition; that while Section 86 of R.A. No. 9497 categorically states that "the incumbent Assistant Secretary of the ATO shall continue to hold office and assume the powers of the Director General until his successor shall have been appointed and inducted into office," the law made no mention of the status of the employment of the personnel of the defunct ATO. The employees' hold-over status as indicated in the IRR and in the Joint Senate Resolutions is opposed to Section 86 of R.A. No. 9497 which merely limits such status to the incumbent Assistant Secretary of the ATO as acting CAAP Director General. Likewise, petitioner asserts that the IRR expanded and modified the law and that the legislature through the issuance of said Resolutions encroached on the functions of this Court in interpreting the same. All told, petitioner submits that R.A. No. 9497 simply mandated that the selection and appointment of the heads of offices within CAAP are limited to the rank-and-file employees of the concerned or corresponding offices of the defunct ATO and that the personnel of the same, unless they opted to retire, are legally deemed transferred to the newly created CAAP. The hold-over status accorded to the incumbent personnel of the ATO deviated from the law and the same personnel were placed in a disadvantageous situation and were stripped of their security of tenure.

Issues:

1. Whether ATO was abolished under R.A. No. 9497; 


2. Whether the incumbent ATO employees' constitutional right to security of tenure was impaired; and 


3. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion when Section 60 of the IRR provided a "hold-over" status for ATO employees, which was not expressly provided for under R.A. No. 9497. 


Held:

1. No.

Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy. A public office is created either by the Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that brought it into existence.

2. No.

The Court’s ruling in Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board v. Barin is instructive, to wit:

A valid order of abolition must not only come from a legitimate body, it must also be made in good faith. An abolition is made in good faith when it is not made for political or personal reasons, or when it does not circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees. Abolition of an office may be brought about by reasons of economy, or to remove redundancy of functions, or a clear and explicit constitutional mandate for such termination of employment. Where one office is abolished and replaced with another office vested with similar functions, the abolition is a legal nullity. When there is a void abolition, the incumbent is deemed to have never ceased holding office.

Petitioner posits that abolition of an office cannot have the effect of removing an officer holding it if the office is restored under another name. However, the court found no bad faith in the abolition of the ATO as the latter was not simply restored in another name in the person of the CAAP.

CAAP is an independent regulatory body with quasi- judicial and quasi-legislative powers and possessing corporate attributes, having an authorized capital stock of fifty billion pesos which shall be fully subscribed by the Republic of the Philippines. It is attached to the DOTC only for the purpose of policy coordination. While the Director General is responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties including the control over all personnel and activities of the CAAP, the latter's corporate powers are vested in its Board of Directors. It enjoys fiscal autonomy to fund its operations.

3. No.

A petition for prohibition will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.