University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission

Academic freedom grants institutions of higher learning the autonomy to determine who may teach and who should be retained in their academic personnel rolls, shielding them from compelled dismissal by the Civil Service Commission even under the guise of enforcing Civil Service Rules on automatic separation.

The case involves Dr. Alfredo De Torres, an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), who went on an extended leave of absence without pay to serve as a government representative to an international organization. Despite warnings that he would be dropped from the rolls for failing to return after his leave expired, UPLB never formally separated him, instead retaining him and even effecting salary increases and promotions during his absence. The Civil Service Commission later ruled that De Torres was automatically separated from service under Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules.

• Dr. Alfredo B. De Torres was an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).
• He went on vacation leave without pay from September 1, 1986 to August 30, 1989 to serve as the Philippine Government's official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP).
• Prior to the expiration of his leave, CIRDAP requested an extension for another year, but this was denied by Dr. Eulogio Castillo, Director of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Inc. (ACCI) of UPLB.
• De Torres was advised to report for duty at UPLB not later than September 15, 1989.
• Chancellor Raul P. de Guzman warned De Torres that he would be considered on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) and dropped from the rolls if he failed to return.
• On August 27, 1989, De Torres wrote UPLB stating he had no alternative but to continue his commitment to CIRDAP.
• On November 20, 1989, Chancellor de Guzman warned De Torres that failure to report within 30 days would result in being dropped from the rolls.
• Despite the warnings, De Torres did not report to work.
• On January 3, 1994, after almost five years of absence, De Torres wrote Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal reporting back to duty effective the same date.
• Chancellor Villareal initially responded that an employee reporting back should have been on approved leave, and Director Leodegacio M. Ilag informed De Torres he was considered AWOL and advised to re-apply.
• On June 30, 1994, De Torres sought reconsideration.
• On July 4, 1994, Chancellor Villareal reversed his earlier stand and allowed De Torres to report for duty effective January 3, 1994, noting that records showed he had not been officially dropped from the rolls.
• UPLB records showed that De Torres' salary was increased on January 1, 1988, March 16, 1988, and July 1, 1989.
• His appointment was reclassified with promotion in rank from Training Specialist II to Assistant Professor IV effective March 16, 1988, approved by the UP Board of Regents on August 25, 1988.
• No notice or order dropping De Torres from the rolls was ever issued by the UPLB Chancellor.

• No new appointment is necessary for De Torres to resume his post because he was never formally dropped from the rolls of the University and remained continuously with the Civil Service.
• The assailed CSC Resolutions were issued in excess of authority because they violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement and disregarded the University's academic freedom, which includes the right to determine who may teach and who may be dropped from the service.
• Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules (providing for automatic separation) has been repealed and superseded by PD 807 and EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), which decree prior notice before actual dropping.
• Even assuming Section 33 was not repealed, its issuance was ultra vires because it was not related to or connected with any specific provision of the mother law, RA 2260.
• The assailed CSC Resolutions violated De Torres' constitutional right to due process because he was not given prior notice of his actual separation.

• It is of no legal moment that De Torres' name remains in the rolls of UPLB faculty members because his mandatory separation from government service was ipso jure upon his failure to report for duty within the prescribed period.
• The new Civil Service Rules did not repeal but merely complemented Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules, with the additional provision on notice of actual dropping.
• Section 33 was a valid exercise by the CSC of its rule-making power to discipline erring employees of the civil service.
• Due process was sufficiently observed through the denial of De Torres' request for extension of leave, coupled with the advice to report for work and the Chancellor's letter warning that he would be dropped from the rolls if he failed to report within 30 days.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a new appointment is necessary for Dr. De Torres to resume his post despite having remained in the Civil Service and not having been dropped from the University's rolls.
  • Whether the CSC exceeded its authority in issuing Resolution Nos. 95-3045 and 96-1041.
  • Whether the CSC violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement.
  • Whether the express repeal of the old law eliminated the policy of automatic dropping in favor of notice before dropping.
  • Whether Section 33 of Rule XVI is ultra vires for not being related to any specific provision of RA 2260.
  • Whether Resolution No. 95-3045 violated De Torres' constitutional right to due process.
  • Whether De Torres was validly separated from the civil service due to his prolonged absence without official leave.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The CSC has no authority to force the University of the Philippines to dismiss a member of its faculty under Section 33, Rule XVI when the University has chosen not to exercise its prerogative to drop the employee. Academic freedom grants UP the autonomy to determine who may teach and who should be retained in its rolls of academic personnel.
  • Section 33, Rule XVI providing for automatic separation applies only when the agency or university actually drops the employee from the rolls. In the cited cases of Quezon v. Borromeo, Isberto v. Raquiza, and Ramo v. Elefaño, the employees were actually dropped and replaced. In this case, UP never dropped De Torres; instead, it retained him in the rolls, increased his salary three times, and promoted him with the approval of the Board of Regents.
  • The acts of UP in retaining and promoting De Torres are inconsistent with separation from the service and demonstrate the University's exercise of academic freedom to choose who should continue to teach.
  • The CSC is not a co-manager or surrogate administrator of government offices; its authority is limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their concordance with Civil Service Law. It does not have the power to terminate employment or drop workers from the rolls on its own.
  • No new appointment is necessary for De Torres. His service in UP is deemed uninterrupted during his tenure at CIRDAP.

• Academic Freedom — Institutions of higher learning possess the freedom to determine for themselves on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. This freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and who should be retained in the rolls of professors and other academic personnel, unhampered by external controls.
• Limited Authority of the Civil Service Commission — The CSC is not a co-manager or surrogate administrator of government offices and agencies. Its functions and authority are limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their concordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Law. It does not possess the power to terminate employment or to drop workers from the rolls.
• Automatic Separation under Section 33, Rule XVI — The provision for automatic separation after one year of leave without pay operates only when the employer agency actually drops the employee from the rolls. It does not apply when the employer chooses to retain the employee despite the expiration of the authorized leave.

• "As part of its academic freedom, the University of the Philippines has the prerogative to determine who may teach its students. The Civil Service Commission has no authority to force it to dismiss a member of its faculty even in the guise of enforcing Civil Service Rules."
• "The University has the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."
• "Clearly, this freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel."
• "As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure."
• "The CSC is not a co-manager, or surrogate administrator of government offices and agencies. Its functions and authority are limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their concordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Law."

• Quezon v. Borromeo (149 SCRA 205) — Cited by respondent regarding automatic separation under Section 33, Rule XVI; distinguished by the Court because the employee therein was actually dropped from the rolls and replaced by a new appointee.
• Isberto v. Raquiza (67 SCRA 116) — Cited regarding automatic separation; distinguished because the employee's position was declared vacant and filled by another.
• Ramo v. Elefaño (106 SCRA 221) — Cited regarding automatic separation; distinguished because the school's board of trustees actually passed a resolution dropping the petitioner and appointing her replacement.
• Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong (222 SCRA 644) — Cited for the principle that educational institutions are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls.
• Reyes v. Court of Appeals (194 SCRA 402) — Cited for the definition of academic freedom.
• Garcia v. The Faculty Admissions Committee (68 SCRA 277) — Cited for academic freedom principles.
• Chang v. Civil Service Commission (191 SCRA 663) — Cited for the limited authority of the CSC as not being a co-manager or surrogate administrator.
• Cagayan Capitol College v. NLRC (189 SCRA 658) — Cited for academic freedom.
• La Salette of Santiago v. NLRC (195 SCRA 80) — Cited for academic freedom.

• Section 5(2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution — Provides that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
• Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules — Provided that an employee on leave without pay who fails to return after one year shall be considered automatically separated from the service.
• Republic Act No. 2260 — The Civil Service Law (mother law).
• Presidential Decree No. 807 — The Civil Service Decree, cited as having repealed prior civil service laws.
• Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Cited as requiring prior notice before dropping from the service.
• Act No. 1870 (UP Charter) — Cited regarding the authority of the Board of Regents as the highest governing body of UP.