CMM DIGEST

Natl Land Titles and Deeds Registration Admin v. CSC

April 7, 1993
G.R. No. 84301
(The Law on Public Officers, Civil Service Laws, Election Laws)


Petitioner: Natl Land Titles and Deeds Registration Admin (NALTDRA)
Respondent: CSC; Violeta Garcia
Ponente: Campos, Jr.

FACTS:
Garcia was an LLB grad and a first grade civil service.
She was appointed Deputy Register of Deeds VII.
She was later appointed as Deputy Register of Deeds III, upon reclassification of the
position.
She was designated as Acting Branch Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Executive Order No. 649 was enacted.
It authorized the restructuring of the Land Registration Commission to National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration, and it regionalized the offices of the
registers therein.
The law imposed a new requirement of BAR membership to qualify for permanent
appointment as Deputy Register od Deeds II or higher.
Garcia issued an appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II on temporary status for not
being a member of the Philippine Bar.
Sec. of Justice notified Garcia of the termination of her services on the ground that she was
receiving Bribe Money.
Garcia appealed, but the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dropped her appeal on
the ground that the termination of her services was due to the expiration of her
temporary appointment.
The CSC issued a resolution, directing that Garcia be restored to her position.
According to the CSC, under the vested right theory, the new requirement of the BAR
membership will not apply to her but only to the filling up of vacant lawyer position on
or after Feb 9, 1981, the date the order took effect.
NALTDRA assailed the validity of the CSC Resolution

ISSUE: WON membership in the bar, which is a qualification requirement prescribed for
appointment to the position of Deputy Register of Deeds under EO. No. 649, Section 4, should
be applied only to new applicants and not to those who were already in service of the LRC as
deputy register of deeds at the time of the issuance and implementation of the EO.

HELD: No. The requirement shall also apply to those already in service.

RATIO:
EO No. 649, in express terms, provided for the abolition of existing positions:
Section 8. Abolition of Existing Positions. All structural units in the LRC and in the
registries of deeds, and all positions therein shall cease to exist from the date specified
in the implementing order to be issued by the president pursuant to the preceding par.
The pertinent functions, applicable appropriations, records, equipment and property
shall be transferred to the appropriate staff or offices therein created.
CMM DIGEST
Natl Land Titles and Deeds Registration Admin v. CSC
April 7, 1993
G.R. No. 84301
(The Law on Public Officers, Civil Service Laws, Election Laws)

The law, therefore, mandates that from the moment an implementing order is issued,
all positions in the LRC is deemed non-existent. This is NOT removal. Removal implied
post subsists and one is merely separated therefrom, while here, there is no position at
all. Thus, there can be no tenure to speak of.
Abolition of office is valid if (1) carried out by a legitimate body and (2) done in good faith.
(1) LEGITIMATE BODY
In this case, it was by LEGITIMATE BODY. There is no dispute over the authority to carry
out a valid reorganization in any branch/agency of govt under Sec 8, Article XVII of the
1973 Consti.
(2) GOOD FAITH
Re: good faith, if the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional
functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different
from the one abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old
office, it will be considered an abolition and creation of new one. The same is true if the
office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy, are given to an existing office.
In this case, EO No. 649 was enacted to improve the services and better systematize the
LRC. The requirement of Bar membership was imposed to meet changing circumstnaces
and new developments. It was imposed concomitant with a valid reorganization
measure.
Re: Vested right theory, no such thing as a vested interest or estate in an office, except
constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure.

JUDGMENT: Garcia has no vested property right to be re-employed in a reorganized office. She
cannot be reinstated to her former position. CSC Resolution reinstating Garcia was set aside.