ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 133511. October 13, 2003]

vs. FERNANDEZ

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 13 2003.

G.R. No. 133511 (Hon. William C. Padolina, in his capacity as Secretary of the DOST, et al., vs. Ofelia D. Fernandez.)

Respondent Ofelia D. Fernandez was the PAGASA Finance and Management Division Chief of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).

On April 2, 1996, petitioner Secretary of DOST issued Special Order No. 129 Series of 1996 reassigning Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other PAGASA personnel. The respondent was reassigned to the Finance and Management Service Director's Office in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. She refused to acknowledge the said Special Order and report for work thereat. She also asked the petitioner to lift Special Order No. 129 on the ground that the application of the same was tantamount to her constructive dismissal, but the petitioner found no compelling reason to lift said SO No. 129. The respondent appealed to the CSC but the latter dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Her motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied.

On December 18, 1996, the petitioner issued DOST Special Order No. 557, Series of 1996 directing the return of PAGASA officials/employees to their units as of March 30, 1996. The said Special Order likewise ordered the retention of other PAGASA personnel at their current assignments, including the respondent, in accordance with Special Order 129.

With the respondent's failure to comply with her reassignment, a fact-finding committee was created to look into the matter. The committee recommended the filing of a formal charge against the respondent. It found the respondent guilty of insubordination and recommended a penalty of a suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. The petitioner issued a decision adopting the findings and recommendation of the committee.

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals questioning the CSC decision dismissing her appeal and denying her motion for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on April 15, 1998, reversing the CSC's resolution declaring that the respondent's reassignment effectively demoted her in rank, status and salary, for a triple violation of the Administrative Code of 1987. The petitioner then went to this Court assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision.

On July 14, 1999, this Court issued a Resolution denying the petition and affirming the CA Decision. The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration.

On October 10, 2000, this Court, through Justice Sabino R. De Leon, Jr., issued a Resolution, denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

On April 29, 2003, the respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that pursuant to the July 14, 1999 Resolution of this Court, she be paid her back salaries, RATA, productivity, incentives, COLA, PERA, bonus, amelioration and clothing allowance. She alleged that she was not paid her honoraria corresponding to the same period in the amount of P37,200.00.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the motion contending that:

Honoraria as provided under National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 75 (Prescribing Guidelines and Procedures for the Grant of Honoraria to Government Officials and Employees; March 1, 1995) is a form of compensation or reward paid over and above the regular pay in recognition of gratuitous services of, among others, agency personnel performing or discharging duties in agency activities or special projects in addition to over and above their regular functions. It is not a regular personnel services benefit as entitlement thereto is based on factors such as, but not limited to performance, productivity and number of hours rendered as provided under Item 6.3.3 of NCC 75.

Respondent herself admits that she "did not work during the entire pendency of the case or cases invoking Special Order No. 129 (reassignment) x x x" (Ibid.). Thus, there would be no basis for determining her honoraria since honoraria is based on performance, productivity and number of hours rendered in the project. Indeed, it is not denied that Carmelita Llanes, Ellaquim Aduy and Elisa Corpuz were alternately designated as officers-in-charge of FMD-PAGASA during the reassignments and correspondingly performed the functions pertaining to the special projects (Ibid., Annex C, p.2). [1] cralaw

We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General.

IN VIEW THEREOF, the respondent's motion for payment of honoraria is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 257-258.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com