SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 133511. October 10, 2000]
HON. WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, In his capacity as Secretary of
the Department of Science & Technology (DOST) and DR. LEONCIO A. AMADORE,
in his Capacity as Director, Philippine Atmospheric, Geographical and
Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), petitioners, vs. OFELIA
D. FERNANDEZ, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE
LEON, JR., J.:
Petitioners William G.
Padolina and Dr. Leoncio A. Amadore, as Secretary of the Department of Science
and Technology (DOST) and Director of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical,
and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) respectively, move for the
reconsideration of our Resolution dated July 14, 1999,[1] affirming the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44541[2] which declared as void ab initio DOST
Special Order No. 129, S. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as SO 129) insofar as
it affected respondent Ofelia D. Fernandez.
The pertinent facts are
as follows:
Respondent Ofelia D.
Fernandez was the PAGASA Finance and Management Division Chief of the
DOST. On April 2, 1996, petitioner
Padolina issued SO 129 providing for the reassignment of
Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other personnel in PAGASA. Pursuant to this order, respondent was
reassigned to the Finance and Management Service Director’s Office in Bicutan,
Taguig, Metro Manila.
Respondent requested
petitioner Padolina to lift SO 129 stating that such order was tantamount to
her constructive dismissal, thus, a violation of her security of tenure. However, petitioner Padolina denied the said
request inasmuch as he found no compelling reason to lift SO 129. Instead, he advised the respondent to comply
with the order of reassignment.
Respondent appealed to
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) praying that SO 129 be declared ineffective
and that she be restored to her former position, but the CSC dismissed the
appeal for lack of merit.
On December 18, 1996,
petitioner Padolina issued DOST Special Order No. 557, S. 1996, which directed
the return of certain PAGASA officials/employees to their units as of March 30,
1996. Likewise, it ordered the
retention of other PAGASA personnel, including respondent, at their current
assignments in accordance with SO 129.
In the meantime, a
fact-finding committee was formed to look into the reason behind her refusal to
accept her reassignment. After an ex-parte
evaluation of pertinent documents, the committee recommended that a formal
charge of insubordination be filed against the respondent.
When the committee on
investigation conducted a hearing, respondent did not appear. Hence, the case was heard in absentia. After the hearing, a report was submitted by
the committee finding the respondent guilty of insubordination. The committee recommended that a penalty of
suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay be imposed on the
respondent. On May 13, 1997, petitioner
Padolina issued a decision adopting the committee’s findings and
recommendation.
On June 5, 1997, CSC
Director Nelson L. Acebedo wrote to respondent, and directed her to immediately
report to her place of reassignment in accordance with the resolution of the
CSC which denied the latter’s appeal before said body.[3]
Meanwhile, respondent
moved for reconsideration of the CSC Resolution denying her appeal. Her motion for reconsideration was also
denied, but the CSC ruled that respondent was entitled to Representation and
Travel Allowance (RATA) during the period of her reassignment.
Not satisfied with the
decision of the CSC, respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
(CA). The CA decided in favor of
respondent declaring that SO 129 is void ab initio. According to the CA, such order adversely
affected the position of respondent who should be restored to all the rights
and privileges of her office; and
that respondent’s reassignment has
effectively demoted her in rank, status and salary for a triple violation of
the Administrative Code of 1987.
Consequently, petitioners
filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari[4] before this Court assailing the Decision of
the CA.
On July 14, 1999, we
dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision of the CA. We held that SO 129 was indeed void ab
initio insofar as it adversely affected the position of the respondent; and
that security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally-guaranteed
feature of our Civil Service. The
mantle of protection of the Civil Service extends not only to employees removed
without cause but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount
to illegal removal from office.
Section 10, Rule 7 of the
Omnibus Rules implementing Book 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive
Order No. 292) provides that:
(7) Reassignment – A reassignment is a movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment.
Section 24 (g) of
Presidential Decree No. 807 authorizes reassignment by providing that an
employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same
agency but such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or
salary. A diminution in rank, status, or
salary, is enough to invalidate such a reassignment.
We held that SO 129
violated the security of tenure of respondent and hence, invalid. An examination of SO 129 also shows that the
questioned order contains no definite date or duration of the reassignment. 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,” which
means that the respondent’s duration of service in the office of the DOST-FMS
Director shall be for an indefinite date, dependent on the time when the DOST
shall issue a new special order which may or may not even include
respondent. As a matter of fact, she
was not one of those returned to their original units per DOST Special Order
No. 557. Accordingly, we held that such
a situation is indeed tantamount to a floating assignment, which results in a
diminution of status or rank. We also
ruled that respondent was deprived of the emoluments attached to her former
position like RATA and similar allowances which signified a diminution in
compensation that is proscribed by the rule on re-assignment. Finally, we also held that the status of
respondent has been adversely affected inasmuch as her reassignment to the
DOST-FMS Director’s Office reduced her to a mere subordinate without authority
to supervise anyone; in effect, she was demoted in rank and status.
In their instant motion
for reconsideration, petitioners reiterate their arguments in the main petition
which were already considered in our Resolution. Petitioners argue that respondent’s reassignment was not
indefinite. However, petitioners fail
to present any evidence to prove that the reassignment of respondent was for a
definite period.
A careful examination of
SO 129 shows that it contains no definite date or duration of
reassignment. As previously stated,
this is tantamount to a floating assignment that results in a diminution in
rank. Although SO No. 557 was later
issued ordering the return of some of the other reassignees, subject of SO 129
eight (8) months after their reassignment, this belated act cannot cure the
defect of SO 129.
Petitioners maintain that
the reassignment of respondent did not reduce her to a mere subordinate. Petitioners aver that respondent’s
“movement” from the original organization unit (Finance and Management
Division, PAGASA) to another (Financial Management Services) in the same
department (DOST) meets the requirements of a valid reassignment and that the
circumstances that she may have “temporarily lost” supervision of forty-one
(41) employees is an incidental, albeit temporary, consequence of the
reassignment and cannot be considered a demotion.
We are not
impressed. Such reassignment in fact removes
from respondent’s power of supervision over forty-one (41) employees who are
part of her staff and subordinates, thereby resulting in a diminution of her
status. Petitioners, however, insist
that the reassignment is just temporary.
The reassignment resulting in a diminution of the status of respondent
may have been temporary but it is a diminution nonetheless. Besides, there was no definite duration of
the reassignment which fact added to respondent’s reluctance to accept such
reassignment.
Petitioners stated in
their motion for reconsideration that respondent was not paid her salaries,
RATA and similar allowances simply because of her continued refusal to report
to her place of reassignment from the very start. On this point, we rule in favor of the petitioners. There is no evidence in the records which
clearly show that respondent will be deprived of RATA and other
emoluments. Such alleged diminution
must be proven. In fact, the CSC
clearly ordered that respondent should be given her RATA during the period of
her reassignment. Hence, she was
supposed to receive her RATA had she not refused to accept the order of her
reassignment. However, there need not
be a diminution in salary for actual demotion to be present in the instant
case. Under Section 11, Rule VII of the
Omnibus Rules implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, demotion is
defined “as the movement from one position to another involving the issuance of
an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or rank which
may or may not involve reduction in salary.”
A diminution in any one of those categories is sufficient to constitute
a demotion, and hence, tantamount to a virtual dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s Resolution dated July 14, 1999 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.