ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 133511. July 14, 1999]
HON WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, et al. vs. OFELIA D. FERNANDEZ.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 14, 1999.
G.R. No. 133511 (Hon. William G. Padolina, et al vs. Ofelia D. Fernandez.)
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 [Rollo, pp. 7-22.] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by Hon William G. Padolina and Dr. Leoncio A. Amadore in their respective capacities as Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and Director of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44541 which declared as void ab initio DOST Special Order No. 129, S. 1996 in so far as it affected respondent Ofelia D. Fernandez.
The records disclose the following facts:
Respondent was the PAGASA Finance and Management Division Chief of the DOST when on April 2, 1996, petitioner Padolina issued Special Order No. 129, S. 1996 (SO 129, for brevity),2 [Ibid., p. 30.] reassigning Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other personnel in PAGASA. In respondent's case, she was reassigned to the Finance and Management Service Director's Office in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
Subsequently, respondent requested Padolina to lift SO 129 on the ground that the same was tantamount to her constructive removal and thus, violated her tenurial security. Padolina, however, found no compelling reasons to lift SO 129 hence, he denied said request of Fernandez and advised the latter to comply with the order of reassignment.
Aggrieved, Fernandez appealed to the Civil service Commission (CSC) praying that SO 129 be declared ineffective and that she be restored to her former position. In a resolution issued on September 17, 1996, the CSC dismissed said appeal for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, on December 18, 1996, Padolina issued DOST Special Order No. 557, S. 1996, directing the return of certain PAGASA officials/employees to their unit as of March 30, 1996. It likewise ordered the retention of other PAGASA personnel, including respondent, at their current assignments in accordance with SO 129.
Since respondent failed to comply with her reassignment, a fact-finding committee was constituted to look into the matter, which committee, after ex-parte evaluation of the pertinent documents, recommended the filing of a formal charge for insubordination against respondent. A committee on investigation then heard the case in absentia as respondent rejected the said committee's invitation for her to appear. After the hearing, the committee submitted its report finding respondent guilty of insubordination and recommending a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. On May 13, 1997, Padolina a decision adopting the said committee's findings and recommendation.
On June 5, 1997, CSC Director Nelson L. Acebedo wrote respondent directing her to immediately report to her place of reassignment in accordance with the CSC's resolution that denied the latter's appeal before said body.
Thereafter, respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals impugning the CSC decision dismissing her appeal and the resolution which denied her motion to reconsider said decision.
As stated at the outset, the appellate court in a decision promulgated on April 15, 1998, however, found for respondent, thus:
"WHEREFORE, the Department of Science and Technology Special Order No. 129 (Series 1996) is hereby declared void ab initio in so far as it adversely affects the position of petitioner Ofelia Fernandez who should forthwith be fully restored to all the rights and privileges of her office." 3 [Ibid., p. 28.]
In reversing the CSC's decision, the appellate court reasoned out that "petitioner's reassignment has, in actual result, effectively demoted her in rank, status and salary for a TRIPLE violation of the Administrative Code of 1987." This conclusion was arrived a through a consideration of the following:
"1) that the reassignment did not state any justifiable reason for the reassignment - - - a diminution in rank;
2) that it had no specificity of time, functions, duties and responsibilities, making it a floating assignment --- again, a diminution in rank;
3) that it transferred her to Bicutan, Taguig, even as the fourteen other reassigned employees were allowed to continue holding office in Quezon City --- a diminution in status;
4) that it removed from her supervision forty-one employees who were part of her staff and subordinates --- again, a diminution in status;
5) that it separated her from PAGASA which is a distinct agency from DOST although within the latter's organizational umbrella --- not only a diminution in status but also a violation of the basic conditionalties on reassignment under the Administrative Code of 1987; and
6) that it deprived her the emoluments attaching to her office, like RATA and similar allowances --- a diminution in salary."
The sole issue for resolution in the instant case is whether respondent's reassignment from her position as PAGASA Finance and Management Chief to the Finance and Management Services Director's Office (DOST) constituted a valid personnel action.
Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionality-guaranteed feature of our civil service. The mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal removals.4 [Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 555; Brillantes v. Guevarra, 27 SCRA 138.]
Section 24 (g) of Presidential Decree No. 807 authorizes reinstatement by providing that "am employee may be reassigned from on organizational unit to another in the same Department but such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary." It is necessary, therefore, that in the determination of a reassignment's validity, there must be a finding of whether the reassignment of petitioner caused her a diminution in one of the following: rank, status, or salary, as the Court of Appeals did. From the statutory provisions, it is clear therefore that a diminution in just one of the three mentioned categories is enough to invalidate such a reassignment.
Upon an examination of the questioned SO 129, as well as the rationale given in regard thereto5 [Annex "O" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 89-90.], we find the same violative of respondent's security of tenure and thus, invalid. While we may fully subscribed to the laudable intentions of the petitioners in issuing said special order in that it was to "improve the external and internal services delivery of the Agency in a transparent, efficient, effective, and reliable manner" it should not, however, countenance the peremptory setting aside of statutory requisites. The objectives and purposes of personnel actions, however commendable, should in every case be in compliance with the law.
In this regard, while we may not fully agree with all of the appellate court's cited instances of diminution in rank, status or salary, nonetheless, we find that some of such instances are valid and must, therefore, be upheld. Examining SO 129, we readily discover, for instance, that the questioned order contains no definite date or duration of assignment. In fact, in No. 4 of the Implementing Guidelines of SO 129, it is stated therein that "the return of the various Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other personnel concerned to their respective Units shall be the subject of a separate DOST Special Order"6 [Ibid., p. 90.], which means that the respondent's duration of service in the office of the DOST-FMS Director shall be for an indefinite date, dependent as it is, on time when the DOST issues a new special order which may or may not even include respondent, as in fact she was not one of those returned to their original units per DOST Special Order which may or may not include respondent, as in fact was not one of those returned to their original units per DOST Special Order No. 557.7 [Annex "H" of Petition, Rollo, p. 54.] Such a situation is indeed tantamount to a floating assignment that results in s diminution in rank. As held in Bentain v. Court of Appeals, 8 [209 SCRA 644;649 91992).] a reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status, and salary, is, in effect, a constructive removal from the service."
Moreover, it likewise appears that, as found by the appellate court, respondent was deprived of the emoluments attaching to her former position like RATA and similar allowances which signifies a diminution in compensation that is proscribed by the rule on reassignment.
Finally, respondent's status has been likewise affected as her reassignment to the DOST-FMS Director's Office reduced her to a mere subordinate without authority to supervise anyone, in effect, demoting her in rank and status.
There being irregular compliance with the law, the questioned order of the DOST must be struck down as infringing upon respondent's tenurial security.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44541 is AFFIRMED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
