G.R. No. 84301. April 7, 1993. NALTDRA vs.

CSC Facts: Violeta Garcia was a Bachelor of Laws graduate and a first grade Civil Service Eligible. She was appointed as Deputy Registrar of Deeds III (Meycauayan, Bulacan) under permanent status up to Sep 1984. E.O. 649 (LRC Reorganization) took effect on Feb 1981, Sec. 4 of which prescribes membership in the Philippine Bar as a new qualification for appointment. On Oct 1984, Garcia was issued a temporary appointment as Deputy Registrar of Deeds II due to her lack of membership in the bar. She was administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the service (accepting bribes) and was terminated. On appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB) dropped her appeal on the ground that her temporary appointment had expired. On June 1988, in Resolution No. 2, the CSC directed her reinstatement as RD II or its equivalent in the NALTDRA, reasoning that under the vested right theory the new requirement of bar membership may only apply to vacant lawyer positions after Feb 1981, and not to her, who had already acquired permanent status before that date. NALDTRA on petition to annul Resolution No. 2 on the ground that 8, 10 of E.O. 649 abolished the LRC and transferred their functions to offices in the NALDTRA, such newly created offices requiring new appointments, and Garcia not being qualified under the E.O. cannot be reinstated. 1. Was the reorganization valid? YES (Dario vs. Mison) Reorganization is valid provided they are pursued in good faith. (Urgello vs. Osmena) A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient Executive Order No. 649 was enacted to improve the services and better systematize the operation of the Land Registration Commission xxx To this end, the requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key positions in the NALTDRA was imposed to meet the changing circumstances and new development of the times. Private respondent Garcia who formerly held the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II did not have such qualification. It is thus clear that she cannot hold any key position in the NALTDRA. The additional qualification was not intended to remove her from office. Rather, it was a criterion imposed concomitant with a valid reorganization measure. Is there such a thing as a vested right in a public office? NO (22 R.C.L. 285) There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary. Disposition: Resolution No. 2 SET ASIDE