ON OCTOBER 7, a copy of a 15-page decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) involving the case of Marlin Sanogal circulated in Bacolod City.
In its May 13 decision, the CSC invalidated three orders issued by the Office of the Negros Occidental Governor against Sanogal, the former head of the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO).
The three orders were:
* March 15, 2022 – Reassigning Sanogal from the PPDO to the Office of the Governor
* March 15, 2022 – Designating Ana Marie Lucasan as officer-in-charge of the PPDO
* May 19, 2022 – Dropping Sanogal from the rolls for allegedly being absent without official leave (AWOL)
These orders from the office of Gov. Eugenio Jose “Bong” Lacson undoubtedly came as a bombshell to Sanogal, who had devoted 36 years of her life to public service at the Capitol, rising through the ranks from information officer to PPDO head.
Feeling aggrieved, she decided to challenge the orders before the CSC, even without the assistance of legal counsel.
Armed with her knowledge of government procedures and the writing skills she honed as a journalism graduate of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), Sanogal painstakingly contested the orders, presenting her arguments point by point.
And after four long years of waiting, her persistence finally paid off.
Hurray! The CSC found merit in her arguments and ruled in her favor.
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
In a ruling approved by CSC Commissioner Luis Meindrado Pañgulayan, the Commission declared that the three orders against Sanogal — her reassignment, the designation of Lucasan as PPDO officer-in-charge, and her removal from the rolls for alleged AWOL — were not in order.
More significantly, the CSC stated that dropping Sanogal from the rolls was tantamount to constructive dismissal.
In government service, constructive dismissal generally occurs when an agency or public official creates working conditions so hostile, unbearable, or degrading that an employee is effectively forced out of employment. Such circumstances may be legally treated as an unlawful dismissal, even without an outright termination order.
But even setting aside the issue of constructive dismissal, Sanogal’s reassignment on March 15, 2022, raised another serious legal question involving Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code.
This provision prohibits the transfer or detail of civil service officers and employees, including those in government-owned or -controlled corporations, during the election period without prior approval from the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
Sanogal’s reassignment from the PPDO to the Office of the Governor took effect less than two months before the May 9, 2022 national and local elections.
Thus, apart from her CSC victory, Sanogal has also pursued a separate case involving the alleged violation of election laws.
Sanogal was only 59 when she was removed from the Capitol’s rolls.
Today, at 63, she finally has a CSC ruling vindicating her position after years of fighting what she believed was an unjust decision.
‘FOR MY HONOR’
But why did Sanogal bother fighting such a prolonged legal battle when she was already approaching retirement age?
Her answer was simple.
First, she pointed out that she had not yet reached the government’s mandatory retirement age.
“I have not reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 yet,” she said.
Second, she could not accept the stigma of being dismissed from government service for alleged AWOL.
For someone who had devoted more than three decades to public service, such a dismissal was not merely an administrative matter. It was a stain on her reputation and an affront to her dignity.
“What will happen to my more than three decades of serving the government?” she asked. “I will never allow that my hardwork in government will just be put in vain. Never!”
Third, Sanogal maintained that her civil service eligibility entitled her to protection against arbitrary personnel actions.
“I have third-level eligibility in the government and so, the governor must be aware that, by law, I am legally insulated from political movements.”
She cited Career Executive Service Board (CESB) Resolution No. 548, as updated by Resolution No. 719 and subsequent policies, within the broader framework of Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987, and the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Under the applicable civil service rules, government employees who possess the required third-level eligibility and hold permanent appointments to Career Executive Service positions enjoy security of tenure, subject to the relevant legal requirements and merit-and-fitness principles.
For Sanogal, therefore, the fight was never simply about reclaiming her position.
It was about restoring something far more precious — her honor, credibility, integrity, and the good name of her family.
And those, she believed, were worth fighting for, regardless of how long the battle would take.
NOT ALONE
Sanogal is not the only former Capitol official who challenged an adverse personnel decision and eventually secured a favorable ruling from the CSC.
Her younger sister, former Assistant Provincial Administrator Mina Pellejo, was likewise dismissed from government service in November 2021 over allegations of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
The charges stemmed from budget overruns and other alleged irregularities involving the Negros Occidental Comprehensive Health Program, which Pellejo headed at the time.
Refusing to accept the decision, Pellejo challenged her dismissal before the CSC.
Her legal battle ended in victory last January when the Commission overturned the Capitol’s decision against her.
Another case involved lawyer Ernie Magaspag, who holds the position of Attorney IV at the Provincial Legal Office (PLO).
Magaspag also successfully challenged his dismissal from government service in 2020.
His victory came last June, six years after he began his arduous legal battle.
The CSC rejected the Capitol’s allegation that Magaspag had committed dishonesty by supposedly falsifying his Daily Time Records (DTRs).
Beyond the cases of Sanogal, Pellejo, and Magaspag, several other personnel controversies involving Capitol department and section heads had previously attracted considerable public attention.
Among those whose cases made headlines were Provincial Budget Officer Percival “Joy” Salado, former Provincial Agriculturist Japhet Masculino, and former Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (PDRRMO) chief Zeaphard Caelian.
They, too, eventually prevailed in their respective battles but chose to remain largely silent afterward.
Salado was transferred to the Economic Enterprise and Development Department (EEDD).
Masculino retired from government service and is now a full-time law professor at a university in Bacolod City.
Caelian, meanwhile, opted to transfer to the Silay City government as assistant assessor while also serving as president of Roberto Jalandoni Silay City College.
Different individuals. Different circumstances. Different legal battles.
Yet their experiences raise a common and troubling question: Why have so many personnel disputes at the Capitol ended with favorable rulings for the employees concerned?
STERN WARNING
In Sanogal’s case, the CSC’s message could not have been clearer: Not in order!
Or, as we say in local parlance, “Wala nagakasinanto!”
That finding should serve as a stern warning to the Capitol administration to exercise greater care, prudence, and sound legal judgment before issuing personnel orders that could cost government employees their careers.
The favorable CSC rulings involving Sanogal, Pellejo, and Magaspag raise serious questions about the Capitol’s handling of administrative cases and the strength of the legal grounds used to justify their dismissal.
Three employees. Three protracted legal battles. Three unfavorable CSC rulings for the Capitol. Surely, that pattern deserves serious reflection.
Of course, the Capitol has filed motions for reconsideration (MRs) in the respective cases of Sanogal, Pellejo, and Magaspag. That is its legal right.
But motions for reconsideration are sometimes viewed as a means of delaying the consequences of an unfavorable ruling, particularly when the original decision has already exposed serious weaknesses in a party’s position.
Whether the Capitol can successfully overturn these rulings remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that dismissing a government employee should never be treated as a routine exercise of executive authority.
After all, security of tenure is not merely a privilege granted by a benevolent superior.
It is a fundamental protection guaranteed to government employees against arbitrary and unlawful dismissal. And no amount of administrative maneuvering can substitute for credible evidence, due process, and sound legal reasoning.
Half-baked evidence and poorly substantiated accusations simply cannot withstand serious scrutiny when weighed against an employee’s right to security of tenure. The Capitol should know that by now.
Governor Lacson is serving his third and final term, which ends in 2028. What he needs most at this stage of his administration is sound advice from people who understand that good governance is measured by how fairly, wisely, and lawfully he treats those under his authority.
His advisers should help him become the best governor Negros Occidental has ever had — not a governor whose legacy is overshadowed by personnel controversies and embarrassing legal reversals./PN
