NLTDRA v.

CSC
GR No. 84301 | April 7, 1993
Campos, Jr., J.
Petitioner/s: National Land Titles and
Deeds
Registration
Administration (NLTDRA)

Such creation led to the

issuance
of
new
appointments.

Respondents:
Violeta Garcia; Civil
Service Commission (CSC)

Issues:
- WoN the new requirement should
be applied to LRC employees at the
time of the reorganization;
- WoN the reorganization was carried
out in good faith;
- WoN vested right theory is
applicable in this case;

Facts:
- Respondent Violeta Garcia was
appointed Deputy Register of
Deeds VII /III with the Land
Registration Commission (LRC)
- Following the reorganization of the
LRC into the National Land Titles
and
Deeds
Registration
Administration (NLTDRA) under EO
649, she was appointed as Deputy
Register of Deeds II.
o The
EO
introduced
a
requirement that persons in
DRD II should be a member
of the Philippine Bar
o Garcias appointment was
temporary, because she
was not a member of the
Philippine Bar.
- She was terminated for allegedly
receiving bribe money. Her appeal
to the Merit Systems Protection
Board was later dropped, the latter
claiming that her termination was
due to the expiration and nonrenewal
of
her
temporary
appointment.
- On appeal, the Civil Service
Commission
ordered
her
reinstatement:
o Vested Right Theory; the
new requirement of Bar
membership
should
not
apply to her
o Requirement is only for the
filling up of vacant positions
after the requirement was
introduced.
- Hence,
this
petition.
LRTDRA
argues:
o EO 649 abolished all LRC
positions, and created new
ones under the NLTDRA.

Held:
YES. THE REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO ALL.
- EO 649 abolished all the positions
in the LRC, and required new
appointments to be issued to all
the employees of the NLTDRA
- Abolition, however, does not mean
removal; in such cases there is no
more tenure to speak of. Upon the
dissolution of the office, no
impairment of security of tenure
occurs.
- Upon the reorganization, new
positions were created under the
NLTDRA
which
required
the
additional qualification of Bar
membership. It was a criterion
imposed concomitant with a valid
reorganization measure.
- All occupants of such positions, LRC
employees or otherwise, must have
such qualification.
YES. THE REORGANIZATION WAS CARRIED
OUT IN GOOD FAITH.
- Dario vs. Mison: reorganizations
shall be regarded as valid if they
are pursued in good faith.
- As is the case here, reorganization
is carried out in good faith if it is for
the purpose of economy or to make
the bureaucracy more efficient.
NO. VESTED RIGHT THEORY DOES NOT
EXIST
- There is no such thing as a vested
interest in an office. 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.

Neither is there a vested property

right to be reemployed in a
reorganized office.