BPA GROUP 7 - DARIO VS. MISON REPORTING.pdf

ADMINLAW

1. Group 7
DARIO vs. MISON
G. R. NO. 81954
August 8, 1989

2. Facts
The case involves the constitutionality of customs
administrative orders and memoranda issued by
Commissioner Mison.
The petitioners argue that these orders and memoranda
violate their right to due process.
President Corazon Aquino promulgated Executive Order No.
17 on March 25, 1986, which called for the reorganization of
the government.

3. Facts
The reorganization process started in February 1986 and involved
the abolition of certain government offices and positions.
On January 6, 1988, Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison
issued a memorandum outlining the procedure for personnel
placement in the Bureau of Customs.
On January 26, 1988, Commissioner Mison sent notices of
termination to various Customs officials, informing them that
their services were terminated as of February 28, 1988.

4. Whether the customs administrative
orders and memoranda issued by
Commissioner Mison violate the
petitioners' right to due process.
Issue

5. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
petitioners, declaring the customs
administrative orders and memoranda as
unconstitutional and invalid.
Ruling

6. The orders and memoranda violated the petitioners' right
to due process as they did not provide for notice and
hearing before termination.
The orders and memoranda did not comply with the
requirements of the Civil Service Act and Executive
Order No. 17.
The removal or suspension of a civil service officer must
be for cause, and this guarantee is enshrined in the
Constitution.
Ratio

7. The orders and memoranda issued by Commissioner
Mison did not meet the standards for removal from the
career service, such as valid cause, due notice, and
hearing.
The right to an office or employment with the
government is not a vested right and can be removed
without violating due process.
A reorganized employee is not without rights and is
entitled to the benefits provided for by law.
Ratio

8. Thank You for
listening!