You are on page 1of 35

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC
RUSSEL ULYSSES I.NIEVES,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 190422
Present:

- versus -

CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

JOCELYN LB. BLANCO, in her capacity as the
Regional Director, Regional Office No. V, Department Promulgated:
of Trade and Industry,
Respondent.
June 19, 2012
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Decision[1] dated September 10, 2009 issued by
the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Resolution[2] dated November 24, 2009 denying the Motion

for Reconsideration thereof in CA-G.R. SP No. 102174 which reversed and set aside Resolution
Nos. 071693 and 072374 dated August 24, 2007 and December 17, 2007, respectively, of the
Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Petitioner Russel Ulysses I. Nieves (Nieves) is a regular employee of the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) with the position of Trade and Industry Development Specialist. He
was formerly assigned to the DTI’s office in Sorsogon (DTI-Sorsogon). On the other hand,
respondent Jocelyn LB. Blanco (Blanco) is the Regional Director of DTI Regional Office in
Region V.
On February 10, 2005, Blanco issued Regional Office Order No. 09 which directed
Nieves’ reassignment from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI’s provincial office in Albay (DTIAlbay). Nieves appealed his reassignment to the CSC’s Regional Office in Legazpi City (CSC
Regional Office No. V) which, however, dismissed his appeal on March 18, 2005 for his failure
to comply with the requirements of an appeal. Nieves forthwith complied with the reassignment
order and reported for work at DTI-Albay.
A year after his reassignment to DTI-Albay, Nieves requested Blanco for his
reassignment back to DTI-Sorsogon. He asserted that, under Section 6(a) of the Omnibus Rules
on Appointments and other Personnel Actions, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No.
02-05 (Revised Rules on Reassignment), reassignment of employees with station-specific place
of work is allowed only for a maximum period of one year. Considering that more than a year
had passed since he was reassigned to DTI-Albay, Nieves claimed that Blanco was duty-bound
to reassign him back to DTI-Sorsogon.
In a letter dated May 12, 2006, Blanco denied Nieves’ request, stating that the latter’s
appointment as Trade and Industry Development Specialist in the DTI is not station specific and,
hence, the one-year period limitation with regard to reassignment of employees does not apply to
his case.
On June 21, 2006, Nieves filed a complaint with the CSC Regional Office No. V against
Blanco, alleging that the latter committed grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and
oppression when she denied his request for reassignment back to DTI-Sorsogon. Nieves claimed
that Blanco’s refusal to reassign him back to DTI-Sorsogon was but an offshoot of the antipathy
between him and DTI-Sorsogon Provincial Director Leah Pagao (Pagao). Allegedly, Nieves had

previously filed a complaint with the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission against Pagao and, in
reprisal, Blanco reassigned him to DTI-Albay.
On July 12, 2006, Nieves’ complaint against Blanco was referred to the Office of Legal
Affairs of the CSC for appropriate action. On August 24, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
071693,[3] the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Jocelyn LB. Blanco, Regional
Director, Department of Trade and Industry Regional Office (DTI-RO) No.
V, Legazpi City is herebyDISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The letter dated
May 12, 2006 of Regional Director Jocelyn LB. Blanco, DTI-RO No. V,
is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Russel Ulysses I. Nieves, Trade
and Industry Development Specialist, DTI-RO No. V, Legazpi City, shall be
reinstated to his original station in DTI-Sorsogon.
The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. V,
Rawis, Legazpi City is directed to monitor the implementation of this Resolution
and to submit a report to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the Resolution.[4]

The CSC, invoking the provisions of Rule I, Section 5, A(4) of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases, held that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the charge against
Blanco for grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and oppression, since the latter is a third
level official who is a presidential appointee.
Nevertheless, the CSC proceeded to determine the propriety of the reassignment order
issued by Blanco. The CSC pointed out that Nieves’ appointment as Trade and Industry
Development Specialist is not station-specific. Nevertheless, the CSC averred that this does not
mean that Nieves could be reassigned to DTI-Albay indefinitely. It ruled that under the Revised
Rules on Reassignment, a reassignment outside the geographical location, if without the consent
of the employee concerned, should not exceed the maximum period of one year. The CSC
explained that:
Rule III, Section 6(a) of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
Other Personnel Actions (Amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2,
series of 2005), states as follows:
xxxx

A perusal of his submitted appointment would show that his appointment is not station-specific. to his original station in DTI-Sorsogon.[5] Blanco filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Resolution No. dated August 24.“6. with respect to the reinstatement of private respondent Russel Ulysses I. Nieves must be reinstated to his original station. Verily. On September 10. the CA asserted that the phrase “reassignment .[“] xxxx From the foregoing it is clear that after the lapse of one year from Nieves’ reassignment. 2007 and December 17. asserting that the CSC acted without factual and legal basis in directing the reassignment of Nieves in DTI-Sorsogon. said reassignment may only be allowed for a period of one (1) year as it was made without the consent of Nieves. Due to the fact that Nieves was reassigned to DTI-Albay which is outside the geographical location of DTI-Sorsogon. respectively. Reassignment outside geographical location may be from one regional office (RO) to another RO or from the RO to the Central Office (CO) and viceversa. 071693 and 072374. The assailed Resolutions No. 2007. Nieves. reassignment shall be for one (1) year only. if it is without consent. the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. this shall not prevent the reinstatement of Nieves to his original station in DTI-Sorsogon. Blanco then filed a petition for review with the CA. Reassignment outside geographical location if with consent shall have no limit. Trade and Industry Development Specialist. he must be reinstated to his original assignment in DTISorsogon. 072374[6] dated December 17. 2007. 071693 but the same was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. However. are herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. the petition is GRANTED. However. after the lapse of the period of one (1) year from his reassignment. of the Civil Service Commission. 2009.[7] In reversing the CSC’s disposition with regard to the propriety of Nieves’ reassignment back to his original station in DTI-Sorsogon. Petitioner’s Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is now MOOT and ACADEMIC. SO ORDERED.

as long as there is no reduction in rank status and salary. The CSC. The petition lacks merit. He insists that it should include movement from one provincial office to another because one such office is necessarily outside the geographical location of the other.outside geographical location” should be confined to reassignments from one regional office to another or from the central office to a regional office and vice-versa. 2009 but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution[10] dated November 24. amend.e. i. with its . it is crystal clear that a reassignment outside geographical location is a reassignment from one regional office to another regional office or from regional office to the central office or vice versa. from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay. he avers that the CA should have accorded respect and finality to the CSC’s interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Rules on Reassignment. provided that there is no diminution in his rank. Nieves instituted the instant petition for review on certiorari asserting that a “reassignment outside geographical location” should not be restricted to a reassignment from one regional office to another or from the regional office to the central office and vice-versa.[8] Nieves sought reconsideration[9] of the Decision dated September 10. Unperturbed. Further. Thus: From the foregoing. and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws. [11] contends that the CA did not err when it delimited the phrase “reassignment outside geographical location” as referring only to reassignments from one regional office to another or from the regional office to the central office and vice-versa. Since the reassignment of respondent from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay is within same regional office which is Region V. Thus. On the other hand. the CA held that Nieves’ reassignment to DTI-Albay is not affected by the one-year limitation set forth under the Revised Rules on Reassignment since the same is within the same regional office. 2009. in her Comment. Blanco. salary or status. the same shall have no limit even if without his consent. she asserts that Nieves could be reassigned anywhere within the geographical location of Region V without his consent even for more than one year.” has the power to interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them. being the central agency mandated to “prescribe. Accordingly.

Thus. x x x xxxx Reassignment shall be governed by the following rules: 1. the one-year maximum period shall not apply. the Civil Service Commission or a competent court. 2.[13] This case falls within the exceptions. Reassignment of third level appointees is governed by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. An appointment is considered stationspecific when the particular office or station where the position is located is specifically indicated on the face of the appointment paper. 3. reads: Sec. Reassignment of employees with station-specific place of work indicated in their respective appointments shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one (1) year. Stationspecific appointment does not refer to a specified plantilla item number since it is used for purposes of identifying the particular position to be filled or occupied by the employee. in part. At the crux of the instant controversy is the proper construction of the provisions of Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Reassignment which. or when there is no ambiguity in the rule. 6. 5. reassignment of employees whose appointments do not specifically indicate the particular office or place of work has no definite period unless otherwise revoked or recalled by the Head of Agency. or when the language or words used are clear and plain or readily understandable to any ordinary reader. If appointment is not station-specific. courts will not hesitate to set aside such executive interpretation when it is clearly erroneous.interpretation being accorded great weight and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. If an appointment is not station-specific. 1. 4. Personnel movements involving transfer or detail should not be confused with reassignment since they are governed by separate rules. [12] However. These rules shall apply only to employees appointed to first and second level positions in the career and non-career services. reassignment to an organizational unit within the same building or from one building to another or contiguous to each other in one work area or compound is .

unless otherwise revoked or recalled by the Head of the Agency. Thus. then the period of the same shall have no limit. then the following rules apply: first. reassignment shall be for one (1) year only. Reassignment outside geographical location may be from one Regional Office (RO) to another RO or from the RO to the Central Office (CO) and vice-versa. x x x (Emphasis supplied) The language of the Revised Rules on Reassignment is plain and unambiguous. the one-year period limitation does not apply. Here. since the reassignment of Nieves was within the same regional office. However. On the other hand. if the employee without a station-specific place of work is reassigned outside the geographical location of his/her present place of work.e. and departments within an organization. albeit ostensively. if the reassignment is with the consent of the employee concerned. if it is without consent. the Revised Rules on Reassignment has defined. Further. the reassignment of an employee whose appointment is not stationspecific has no definite period unless otherwise revoked or recalled by the Head of the Agency. divisions. To stress. what constitutes a “reassignment outside geographical location”. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal. then the same should not exceed the maximum period of one year. Organizational unit refers to sections. i. It states that “[r]eassignment outside geographical location may be from one [r]egional [o]ffice x x x to another [regional . the CSC or a competent court. it is undisputed that Nieves’ appointment as a Trade and Industry Development Specialist is not station-specific. if the reassignment is without the consent of the employee concerned. The reassignment of an employee with a station-specific place of work indicated in their respective appointments is allowed provided that it would not exceed a maximum period of one year. 6. second. the period of his reassignment to DTI-Albay is indefinite.allowed. from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay. Nieves’ insistence that a “reassignment outside geographical location” should likewise include a reassignment from one provincial office to another provincial office is untenable. Reassignment outside geographical location if with consent shall have no limit. the CSC or a competent court. 7. Nevertheless.

This is a mere allegation that Nieves utterly failed to substantiate. Nieves’ assertion that his reassignment to DTI-Albay constitutes constructive dismissal as it caused him significant financial dislocation is also devoid of merit. Further.[15] The said provision used the word “may” to emphasize that a “reassignment outside geographical location” is restricted only to either reassignment from one regional office to another regional office or a reassignment from the central office to a regional office and vice-versa. (2) reassignment from the regional office to the central office. However. It is true that the use of the word “may” ordinarily operates to confer discretion. Nieves’ insistence that a reassignment from one provincial office to another provincial office within the same region should likewise be considered as a “reassignment outside geographical location” is clearly but a foray in the dark.office] or from the [regional office] to the [c]entral [o]ffice x x x and vice-versa. this term may be construed. Moreover. we deny the same for lack of legal and factual bases. and (3) reassignment from the central office to the regional office. Thus. We do not agree.[16] Anent Nieves’ prayer for an award of moral damages. if we are to follow Nieves’ assertion that the instances stated in the said provision are merely examples. . Nieves asserts that the use of the word “may” operates to confer discretion on the part of the CSC to consider any other reassignments as one which is outside the geographical location and that the circumstances cited in the said provision are mere examples of reassignments outside geographical location. then every reassignment effected by the various offices could be considered as a “reassignment outside geographical location” depending on the discretion of the CSC. this is not what the Revised Rules on Reassignment intended.[14] A perusal of the foregoing would show that the Revised Rules on Reassignment has clearly confined the coverage of the phrase “reassignment outside geographical location” to the following: (1) reassignment from one provincial office to another. in a mandatory and restrictive sense. as it is in this case clearly intended to be. It bears stressing that a reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service. Surely.

SERENO. 2009 and the Resolution dated November 24. REYES. REYES... CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 167002 Present: CORONA.versus - COURT OF APPEALS. BRION.J. REYES. BERSAMIN. SENEN D. the petition is DENIED. PERALTA. JR. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. CARPIO. Petitioners. The assailed Decision dated September 10. JR. G.. JJ. in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions. we find that the CA did not commit any error in ruling that the one-year period limitation set forth in the Revised Rules on Reassignment finds no application in the instant case. .. SP No. and HERNANDO B.All told. Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC VICTOR R. WHEREFORE.R. DEL CASTILLO. CLARISSA G. JR. substituted by his heirs. PEREZ. GARCIA. JOSE L. . SO ORDERED. No. MENDOZA. and CZARINA G. VELASCO. ABAD. HON. TOMADA. 102174 are AFFIRMED. C. and PERLAS-BERNABE. ATIENZA. REYES.R. VILLARAMA. 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. in his capacity as City Mayor ofManila. REYES. CLARIBEL G.

Promulgated: December 12. which was indicated as ‘Transfer with Promotion. Hence. v.R. Garcia. Tomada’s appointment. entitled “Hernando B. 1998 elections. Tomada and intervenor Victor R. SP No. the petition is GRANTED and the assailed resolution of the Civil Service Commission is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. or forty-six days before the May 11. THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS The factual and procedural antecedents have been succinctly recited in the subject decision of the CA as follows: On March 26.” the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. Garcia as Assistant City Assessor of the City of Manila is UPHELD over the claims of respondent Senen D. Atienza. On the same date. then Mayor Alfredo Lim (or “Lim”) of the City of Manila appointed Senen Tomada (or “Tomada”) as City Government Assistant Department Head III (Assistant City Assessor. 2005. or “subject position”).Respondents. Senen D. Tomada. Reyes (Reyes) assailing the August 28. Intervenor. 1998. petitioner.” was submitted to the Civil Service Commission Field Office (or “CSCFO”) in Manila for consideration and approval. this petition. 2003 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA). in his capacity as the City Mayor of Manila. Jr. 59616. . respondents” and “Victor R. in CAG. Civil Service Commission Mayor Jose L. Reyes to that position. 2011 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION MENDOZA. J. SO ORDERED.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Victor R. The appointment of petitioner Hernando B. Reyes.[2] Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated February 2.

1998. within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission. 1998. or between March 27. which reads: “Sec. Jr. In a letter dated March 26. promotion. x x x h) Transfers of officers and employees in the civil service. Mayor Jose L. appointed Hernando Garcia (or “Garcia”) to the subject position. Prohibited acts. On April 24. . Tomada was assigned at the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila as Local Treasury Operations Officer IV.Prior to her appointment. id.—The following shall be guilty of an election offense: xxx (g) Appointment of new employees. Mayor Atienza. 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code. creation of new position. On July 1. who ran for and was elected as mayor of the City of Manila in the same elections. CSCFO head Arturo Panaligan (or “Panaligan”) wrote to the Civil Service Commission (or “CSC”) office requesting clarification on the validity of Tomada’s appointment given the prohibition against certain personnel actions under Section 261(g) and (h). the COMELEC opined that her appointment was valid because promotional appointments are only prohibited under said law if issued within forty-five days prior to the May 11. or giving salary increases. referred Panaligan’s request to the CSC Central Office for appropriate action. 1998 elections. 1998. however. Pending action on Tomada’s appointment. 261. In a reply-letter dated April 2.—During the period of forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election. 1998. 1998 elections. 1998. (or “Mayor Atienza”) assumed Lim’s position upon the latter’s running for president in the May 11.” The CSC-NCR. in turn.. 1998 and May 11.— Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers. Atienza. Tomada sought clarification from the Commission on Elections (or “COMELEC”) on whether her appointment to the subject position was prohibited under Sec.

1998. 99. 99-2208 and recalling Garcia’s appointment to the subject position. further. per her letter dated July 29. On June 7.On July 28. id. with an application for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Series of 1993. 1998. Panaligan cancelled Tomada’s appointment without awaiting the CSC’s reply to his April 24. Panaligan wrote to Mayor Atienza requesting immediate implementation of CSC Resolution No. and considering. however. 2000. therefore. that the promotional appointment of Tomada was issued prior to the prohibited period as provided for in the Omnibus Election Code. s. He argues that he cannot be removed from the subject position in the guise of a recall since the ground for his removal is not sanctioned by law. 2208 approving Tomada’s promotional appointment. 1998 by Panaligan of the CSCFO. 1999. and Tomada did not pay the requisite docket fee. 1998 letter. Garcia also faults the CSC for acting on Tomada’s motion for reconsideration even as it was not made by the proper appointing authority prescribed in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1999. 2000. the CSC issued Resolution No. On September 27.” On November 19. On July 11. Garcia maintains that he was not notified of Tomada’s appeal to the CSC and that he assumed the subject position by virtue of a valid appointment issued by Mayor Atienza which was approved on August 31. 1998. pointing out that the CSC was yet to reply to Panaligan’s request for clarification. Garcia filed the instant petition for certiorari and quo warranto. He adds that Tomada’s . Mayor Atienza filed a petition for reconsideration which was. 38. explaining that said appointment constituted a “transfer” which was allegedly a violation of Sec. The resolution pertinently reads: “Considering. Panaligan stated that his action was without prejudice to the CSC’s resolution on the matter. 2000. dismissed by the CSC on May 22. 261(h). 11. that her movement from one office to another is merely incidental to her promotion. Tomada sought reconsideration of the cancellation of her appointment. Nevertheless. ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the CSC for recalling his appointment. the Commission finds such personnel action not in violation of the Omnibus Election Code and CSC Office Memorandum No.

Reyes also alleged that in light of the abovementioned circumstances. In his answer-in-intervention. and (ii) the CSCFO’s disapproval of her appointment is merely conditional as shown in the notation on her appointment letter which reads. that when Lim assumed office in 1992 as Manila mayor. As for Mayor Atienza. that those who failed to tender courtesy resignations were physically harassed or subjected to trumped-up criminal and administrative charges. 2000. In support of her argument. Tomada counters that Garcia’s appointment is null and void because. that he (Reyes) himself was charged with falsification and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the subject position was not yet vacant as the CSCFO disapproved her appointment only on July 27. 1998. which was denied per resolution dated February 14. Meantime. Tomada also points out that the CSC did not violate Garcia’s right to due process because a hearing is not required in CSC proceedings which are not disciplinary in nature. he merely adopted the arguments raised by Garcia in his petition before this Court. Tomada explains that she could not immediately institute a quo warranto proceeding against Garcia pending the administrative proceedings before the CSC concerning the validity of her appointment. Order No. 1989. 10. “without prejudice to whatever resolution the Commission may issue on this (appointment). 2002.” Anent the issue of prescription. and that an administrative complaint was filed against him by a certain Amador Valdeviego. on October 12. 1993 requesting for his transfer to the Quezon City Hall and approval of his application for sick leave for . Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Exec.” Tomada further claims superior right to the subject position because: (i) her appointment was issued prior to that of Garcia. Reyes averred that former Manila Mayor Gemiliano Lopez appointed him to the subject position on August 3. at that time. 292 which provides that “an appointment shall remain effective until disapproved by the Commission. Tomada cites Sec. 2001 but later granted pursuant to the resolution dated August 7. For her part. he (Reyes) was among the officials pressured to resign from office so that Lim could appoint his own people. he wrote Lim on October 1. 1998).right to claim the subject position is barred by prescription for failure to file an action for quo warranto within one year from his (Garcia) appointment to the subject position (on July 1. Victor Reyes (or “Reyes”) filed a motion for intervention in his alleged capacity as the incumbent Assistant City Assessor of Manila.

On August 28. Tomada’s promotion did not fall within the 45-day period prior to the May 11.two months. This is clear from the phrase “transfer with promotion” used in her appointment paper by way of describing the nature of her appointment.. 2003. Reyes further alleged that the criminal and administrative charges against him were dismissed but despite this development which could have allowed him to retire from the service. Lim failed to act on his application for retirement. and that the recall of his appointment amounted to his removal from office without cause and without due process. On October 18. The OSG points out that CSC Resolution No. “the appointee need not be previously heard thereon. 99-2208 does not involve the imposition of an administrative disciplinary measure and. the Office of the Solicitor General (or “OSG”) maintains that the CSC correctly upheld the promotional appointment of Tomada. 1999. her transfer from the Office of the City Treasurer to the Office of the City Assessor is a different matter. i. that his appointment being “complete. promotion and transfer. therefore. the CA wrote: At the outset. the CA rendered the assailed decision [3] granting the petition of Garcia and upholding his appointment over the claims of Tomada and Reyes to the position. lawful and effective. Garcia filed a reply to Tomada’s comment alleging that her appointment has not become effective for failure to assume the subject position. that on March 10. Garcia and the City of Manila. it should be observed that Tomada’s appointment actually involved two kinds of personnel action. However. Sec. Omnibus Election Code). 1998 elections (Sec. 1993. In justifying its ruling.” and that the CSC merely recalled Garcia’s appointment inasmuch as the earlier appointment of Tomada is valid. 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits “any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service including . For its part. Reyes wrote Mayor Atienza advising of his desire to re-assume the subject position.e. Reyes filed with the CSC a complaint for Assumption of Office against Mayor Atienza. 261[g]. which requests were granted by Lim. 2000.” he has superior right and title to the subject position vis-àvis Tomada. and manifesting willingness to retire if his transfer could not be effected by December 31. and that when Mayor Atienza failed to act on his request.

it is clear that Tomada’s transfer from the Office of the City Treasurer to the Office of the City Assessor on March 26. Commission on Elections. Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs.” Pursuant to this provision. is hereby prohibited. through Office Memorandum (OM) No.” (Underscoring supplied) From the foregoing. This is as it should be in keeping with the well-entrenched rule that where the law does not distinguish. or 120 days before election and 30 days after election. 11. there is no need for any extended court ratiocination thereon – there is no room for interpretation. Consequently. 320 SCRA 279). including public school teachers pursuant to Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code for the period beginning January 11. there is no legal basis for the CSC’s stance that “the movement of Tomada from one office to another in the City Government of Manila cannot be considered as ‘transfer’ as contemplated in Sec. The phrase transfer or detail shall be construed in general terms. issued the following guideline: “The transfer or detail of officers and employees in the civil service. as in Tomada’s case. Hence. Ubi lex not distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. In Mathay. contravened the express provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and its implementing rules and regulations. In a long line of cases. Jr. 1998. Civil Service Commission (312 SCRA 91). including public school teachers. 345 SCRA 49). the CSC. the .1998.public school teachers. 1998 (Sunday) to June 10. Another reason why the instant petition should be granted is Tomada’s lack of standing to appeal the disapproval of her appointment to the CSC. from one agency is prohibited and is considered an election offense. explicitly provides that the phrase “transfer or detail” shall be construed in general terms. it has been held that when a statute is clear and explicit. Series of 1998. 11. is within the purview of the prohibition against transfers during the election period. which was during the election period. Intermediate Appellate Court. 11. vs. 336 SCRA 458). Series of 1998. only for application (Caguioa vs. 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code and CSC Office Memorandum No. the courts should not distinguish (Guerrero vs. vacillation or equivocation. Thus any movement of officer or employee in the civil service.” To recall. 1998 (Wednesday). s. a transfer incidental to a promotion. within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission. Lavina. CSC OM No.

Reyes’ answer-in-intervention deserves scant consideration. Reyes seeks relief via this petition for review praying that the Court 1. order the reinstatement of Victor [R. he may not make a turnabout and lay claim to said office just because his retirement benefits were not released to him in due course. He may avail of remedies available under the law to compel the release of his retirement benefits. 99-2208 is contrary to law and jurisprudence. dated 28 August 2003. The only way Reyes can re-assume the subject position is by reappointment. Having lost his standing to claim the position he previously held.Supreme Court ruled that only the appointing officer may ask for reconsideration of actions taken by the CSC on appointments. 2. CSC Resolution No. the prayer in his answer-in-intervention must necessarily be denied. order the payment of backwages of Victor [R.[4] . Dissatisfied. 1999. The CSC found that Reyes had effectively vacated the position of Assistant City Assessor of Manila when his application for retirement effective January 1. but not his reinstatement to the subject position.] Reyes to the said position of Assistant City Assessor for Operation of the City of Manila. Consequently.] Reyes as the duly constituted Assistant City Assessor for Operation of the City of Manila. declare petitioner Victor [R. 1994 was approved by Lim. 3. Thus. the same not having been endorsed by Mayor Atienza. 99-2208 dated September 27. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for. declare the appointments of Senen Tomada and Hernando Garcia null and void and. 4. 5. On the other hand.] Reyes from the time he sought assumption of his office until he is restored to his position. Having voluntarily caused his separation from the service. the Resolution dated 02 February 2005 and Civil Service Commission Resolution No. the incumbent mayor of Manila and the appointing authority at the time of disapproval of her appointment. His failure to obtain said benefits does not affect the validity of his voluntary retirement. the CSC should have refrained from acting on Tomada’s request for reconsideration. set aside the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals.

leaving his heirs – Claribel G. Thereafter. substituted by his heirs.[6] Tomada. Later. filed his reply to the comments of the respondents. Reyes. through his heirs. Clarissa G.To sway the Court to his position. therefore. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. OR HAS DECIDED IT IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. Reyes and Czarina G. and respondents Garcia. 2006. the CSC. was not entitled to backwages. For said reason. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE. Reyes could not be reinstated to the position of Assistant City Assessor for Operation and. Reyes. petitioner Reyes. THE COURT’S RULING The CA committed no reversible error in granting the petition of Garcia and upholding the appointment of Garcia as Assistant City Assessor of the City of Manila over the claims of Tomada and Reyes to that position. 1994 . On September 20. Reyes posits that the case be decided by resolving the following ISSUES I. the City of Manila and its City Mayor also filed their Comment. NOT THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT. despite notice through counsel. the City of Manila and the City Mayor of Manila. did not file any comment. Petitioner Victor R. Reyes passed away. OR SO FAR COMMITTED SUCH DEPARTURE SO AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION. the Court directed the parties to file their respective memoranda. In compliance. [5] Garcia and the CSC filed their respective comments on the petition. Reyes – as substitute petitioners. filed their respective memoranda. Reyes effectively vacated his post as of January 1.

REYES Assistant City Assessor[7] Mayor Lim approved his request by placing a notation on the latter itself. 1993 letter. he worked for his retirement benefits. Instead. (Signed) VICTOR R. In the meantime. as averred in his petition. Very truly yours. Initially. if it (transfer) would not be possible. however. Requesting. when Mayor Lim resigned. He claimed to be one of those pressured to tender a courtesy resignation so that Mayor Lim could appoint his own people. ALFREDO S. to apply for retirement. 1993. The said letter reads: HON. He was informed. In order to facilitate all the necessary documents and clearances. in a letter dated October 1. If ever I could not transfer until December 31. by City Hall officials that he had not retired because he had not filed his formal application for retirement. then eventually. that the sick leave I filed for two months (August & September) be approved on the basis of the medical certificate I had submitted. 1994. he did not oblige but later. Following his manifestation in his October 1. he manifested his desire to be transferred to Quezon City Hall and. LIM City Mayor City of Manila Sir: I would like to request for a transfer in Quezon City Hall. His Honor.Records bear out that petitioner Reyes was the Assistant City Assessor for Operation of the City of Manila when Mayor Lim assumed office in 1992. never resumed working and never sought reinstatement. he requested that his sick leave be approved. 1994.[8] . 1993. Hoping for your kind consideration. I would like to request for an allowance of three months to process. I would be applying for a retirement effective January 1. Thank you very much. he never reported for work from January 1.

he had considered himself as having been separated from service as Assistant City Assessor. that: I would like to request for Clearances as needed for my retirement. Rolando C.[9] In his April 8. 1999. Reyes averred: “x x x eventually I applied for (optional) retirement effective Jan. Reyes also wrote to then Presidential Assistant for Appointment and Legislative Affairs. crucial to the cause of action in his complaint. Hon. 1994. City Assessor of Manila.[11] In a letter dated April 12. which are not disputed and even at times averred under oath. he filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Manila to compel the City Government of Manila to approve his claim for said benefits. his position was deemed vacant. Hon. My letter bears the Mayor’s marginal notation ‘approved’ on October 22. As of said date. 1994. Reyes stated. 1994 with the necessary clearance. In the earlier case of Reyes v. 1. Ramirez. is severely undercut by his prior statements. Atienza. To recapitulate. Be informed that last October 1993. but to my surprise the legal department of Manila filed a case which was dismissed by the Ombudsman. including my clearances. among others. Reyes had informed the City Assessor of Manila as early as 8 April 1994 that Mayor Lim “approved my retirement effective January 1. among others. depriving him of benefits due him and his family. Carlos C. the vitality of Reyes’s claim of incumbency.[13] it was written: Still.Failing to receive his retirement benefits. Lim approved my retirement effective January 1. [10] On March 16. assistance for the supposed grave injustice that the City of Manila (under Mayor Lim and Mayor Atienza) had committed against him since 1994. requesting.” Reyes also averred under oath in his petition for mandamus filed in 1995 that he “retired from the service as . 1994. upon my request to his Honor Mayor Alfredo S. 1993. 1999 addressed to then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.”[12] All the foregoing actions and inactions clearly manifest that Reyes voluntarily and effectively separated himself from the service effective January 1. that indicate that starting 1994. Antonio. 1994 letter addressed to Atty.

1995. that his action was without prejudice to the CSC’s resolution on the matter. who ran for and was elected as mayor of the City of Manila. As there was an unresolved controversy on Tomada’s appointment. appoint his successors Considering that his position was deemed vacant. Panaligan wrote Mayor Atienza requesting the immediate implementation of CSC Resolution No. OnNovember 19. 1995. 1999. He resigned on October 31. the appointing power could. and his appointment was approved by the CSC on September 18. [Emphases supplied] As he had vacated his position. dismissed by the CSC on May 22. and did. 99-2208 approving Tomada’s promotional appointment. 1998. 1998. on July 1. the appointing power could. Purisima (Purisima) and Tomada. On September 27.” Reyes had even spent considerable energy since 1994 following up on his clearances for retirement. he actually still was the Assistant City Assessor. On June 7. 99-2208 and recalling Garcia’s appointment to the subject position. the appointments of the first two never having been challenged by him. Mayor Lim appointed Tomada on March 26. It is extremely disingenuous on the part of Reyes to suddenly claim that all this time. Mayor Atienza. Arturo Panaligan (Panaligan) cancelled Tomada’s appointment stating. 1996 and. . Purisima was appointed to the position on July 26. in his stead. a position whose functions has since been assumed by three other persons. however. appoint his successors. however. Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSCFO) head. 1999. As Tomada’s appointment or transfer appeared to have been made during a prohibitive period. it was questioned on the ground that it was violative of Section 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code. There is no showing that he has attempted to perform the functions of Assistant City Assessor since 1994. 1998. the CSC issued Resolution No. Mayor Lim made two (2) subsequent appointments to the position of Assistant City Assessor − Angel R. 2000. Thus. Mayor Atienza filed a petition for reconsideration which was. appointed Garcia to the subject position. and did. On July 28. 2000.City Assessor of Manila.

on October 19. As earlier recited. 2000. within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission. wherein it stated that he was “separated from the service through the mode of retirement effective January 1. the Court agrees with the CA that Tomada’s transfer from the Office of the City Treasurer to the Office of the City Assessor was violative of Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code. Series of 1998.” In this regard. Said section prohibits “any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers. which he subsequently appealed to the CSC. Assistant City Assessor of Manila.”[15] Due to the unfavorable action of the CSC-NCR. he intervened in the certiorari proceedings instituted by Garcia against Tomada in the CA. 2000. The CSC then issued Resolution No. 1998 (Wednesday). 11. In this petition. interestingly. the CSC. 02-0310[14] dated February 28. Garcia acquired a legal right to the subject position At this juncture. 1994. the CA upheld the appointment of Garcia as Assistant City Assessor of the City of Manila over the claims of Tomada and Reyes to that position. Notably. the Court resolves the issue of whether or not the CA was correct in upholding the validity of the appointment of Garcia over the claims of Tomada and Reyes. Reyes questioned such ruling but. including public school teachers pursuant to Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code for the period beginning January 11. Garcia filed the petition for certiorari and quo warranto before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the CSC for recalling his appointment. 1998 (Sunday) to June 10. Tomada never filed her comment on his petition. the CSC-NCR issued an order dismissing the complaint of Reyes for assumption of office. Hernando B. issued the following guideline: The transfer or detail of officers and employees in the civil service. or 120 days before election . [was] deemed vacant on said date. through Office Memorandum (OM) No.On July 11. 2002. and the position which he formerly occupied. In this regard.

and 30 days after election. including public school teachers. Here. business. from one agency is prohibited and is considered an election offense. The phrase transfer or detail shall be construed in general terms. he then began to enjoy the constitutional protection that “No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.”[17] He acquired a legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. [Emphasis supplied] Another reason why the CA granted Garcia’s petition was Tomada’s lack of standing to appeal the disapproval of her appointment to the CSC. the incumbent mayor of Manila and the appointing authority at the time of the disapproval of her appointment. the same not having been endorsed by Mayor Atienza. [18] As Garcia’s appointment was valid. Jr. 2000 from the CSC-GSIS Field Office that the CSC officially communicated. through Manila City Personnel Officer Josefino Reoma. assumed office and became at that moment a government employee or part of the civil service. he could only be removed for cause. Thus. the CA stated that CSC should have refrained from acting on Tomada’s request for reconsideration. He was never given an opportunity to be heard. after reaching a certain age. occupation. he (or his heirs) could not demand backwages. v. as Garcia qualified. Reyes never formally retired either Retirement has been defined as a withdrawal from office. is hereby prohibited. after notice and hearing. Civil Service Commission[16] where it was ruled that only the appointing officer may ask for reconsideration of actions taken by the CSC on appointments. It cited the case of Mathay. It involves bilateral act of the parties. a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter. Moreover. It was only by a letter to Garcia dated June 7. 992208 and 001214 approving the appointment of Tomada. public station. or public duty. A fortiori. there was no vacancy and Reyes could not ask for reinstatement or even reappointment. Therefore. agrees and/or . consistent with the requirements of due process. that his appointment as City Government Assistant Department Head III (Assistant City Assessor) was recalled and that Mayor Atienza was requested to implement CSC Resolution Nos. Thus any movement of officer or employee in the civil service. Garcia was not accorded due process.

. there is no evidence that Reyes properly took the required legal steps to effect his intention of retiring.[19] Retirement plans create a contractual obligation in which the promise to pay benefits is made in consideration of the continued faithful service of the employee for the requisite period.consents to sever his employment with the former. Elaborating. The July 23. the same marginal note of approval to my understanding did not automatically result to transfer or retirement. If ever I could not transfer until December 31. 1993 letter to Mayor Lim. 1993 with my marginal note therein. and other related communications shown to me. age. In respon[se] to your letter-query dated July 17. x x x. 2001 and based n your letter dated October 1. and length of service. to apply for retirement. I recall to have approved your signified intentions to take a vacation leave. then eventually. However. 2001 clarificatory letter of Mayor Lim reads: Dear Mr. he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility with respect to the nature of employment. if it would not be possible. Reyes manifested his desire to be transferred to Quezon City Hall and. I would be applying for a retirement effective January 1. Despite pronouncements of the CSC and the CA to the contrary. Reyes might have intended to retire but it is clear that he did not follow the normal process of retirement. transfer to Quezon City and/or to retire. 1993. The approval of your vacation leave took effect immediately.” [21] Thus. As stated in the letter of Mayor Lim.[20] In his October 1. 1994. he could not be considered retired for all intents and purposes and reap the benefits that flow from it. Mayor Lim wrote that he was required to submit a “formal application and in a prescribed form. Reyes. Before a right to retirement benefits vests in an employee. This is a condition precedent to his acquisition of rights thereunder. The intended transfer and/or retirement were termed in future tense and requires further action on your part to complete. his intended retirement required further action on his part to complete.

(Signed) ALFREDO S. Indeed the record is bereft of any proof that Reyes had indeed retired. In essence. Hon.[27] it was written: x x x. 1999. the Court holds that he was not retired but was considered separated from service effective January 1.[23] Despite the same. it would have been easy for respondents to present the countervailing documents which would have conclusively refuted Reyes’s claims that he still was the incumbent . 1994 and that the legal processes pertaining to his retirement were not complied with. Hon. he also wrote then Presidential Assistant for Appointment and Legislative Affairs. in the earlier case. LIM Former City Mayor of Manila[22] Thus. he was advised by City Hall officials that he was not entitled to them because he had not filed his formal application for retirement. Reyes v. Hence. he filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC to compel the City Government of Manila to grant his application for retirement. to which I do not recall having made any. when he tried to work for his retirement benefits.Both instance requires formal application and in a prescribed form. if indeed Reyes had applied for retirement or submitted his resignation following the normal processes.[24] As earlier stated. your application for retirement you claim to have filed did not reach my office. Ramirez. Transfer to Quezon City requires formal endorsement to the Mayor of Quezon City. [25] Interestingly. Pertinently. and not retirement. Rolando C. but merely mentioned as a possibility. What Reyes had sought approval in the said letter was his application for sick leave and it was only such sick leave. he did not file any application. requesting assistance. on March 16. On the other hand. requiring further action on the part of Reyes. I hope that this clarification will help all concerned in resolving whatever petition you filed with the Civil Service Commission. Atienza. in the earlier Reyes case. Instead.[26] the Court refrained from concluding that the legal processes pertaining to his retirement were observed since there was uncertainty as to whether Reyes indeed retired. Yet it is clear from the letter that the option of retirement was not actually exercised then. which was approved by then Mayor Lim in October of 1993. I do not recall having signed your formal retirement application.

J. 179255 April 2. 1994. VENUSTO D. Having voluntarily initiated his separation from the service. HAMOY. [Emphases supplied] In fine. No. Respondent.Assistant City Assessor. Reyes had already vacated his post as of January 1.. 2009 NATIONAL TRANSMISSION vs. WHEREFORE. but by voluntary separation from the service.: CORPORATION. the petition is DENIED. the only remedy left for his heirs is to properly apply for separation or retirement and claim the benefits from the proper office. SO ORDERED. he could not be allowed to make a turnabout and press claim to the subject office just because the supposed benefits due him were not released to him in due time due to his own neglect. Petitioner. The fact that no such documents were presented makes us refrain from concluding that the legal processes pertaining to resignation or retirement were observed in this case. JR. . As he had already passed away. if warranted. His intended retirement was not duly processed because he failed to comply with the formal requirements of retirement. DECISION TINGA.R. not by way of retirement for failure to show compliance with the existing retirement requirements and procedures. Republic SUPREME Manila of the Philippines COURT EN BANC G.

and that his designation under Office Order No. He reasoned that his detail under Office Orders No. 2004-12296 under which Ortiz assigned respondent additional duties of providing "over-all supervision.9However. ordering the immediate return of Venusto Hamoy." 5 Office Order No.11 . (respondent) as Vice President under Item No. 2005-0256 violated Section 2 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. Office Order No. through Resolution No. s. respondent wrote Ortiz. In a memorandum dated 24 January 2005 from petitioner’s Human Resources Department. 2005-0284 was issued superseding Office Order No. 96837 entitled. to his original position as Vice-President for VisMin Operations & Maintenance. 21. 2005-0256. 33 which states that respondent has been appointed "(VICE-PRESIDENT JG-18) VICEPRESIDENT SG-28 with PERMANENT (status) at the National Transmission Corporation. 2005-0256 was issued designating respondent as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the Power Systems Reliability Group (PSRG). v. 2004-173 and amending Office Order No. on the same date. The National Transmission Corporation (petitioner). Accordingly. 2002 because he did not give his consent thereto.This treats of the petition for review of the decision 1 and resolution2 of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2007 and 7 August 2007. Ortiz issued Office Order No. petitioner’s President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Alan Ortiz (Ortiz) issued on 1 March 2003 Civil Service Commission (CSC) Form No. Jr. in CA-G. requesting reconsideration of Office Order No. respondent was notified of the impending expiration of the temporary appointment of some of petitioner’s key officials and the fact that he was being considered for one of the positions to be vacated."4 Respondent assumed his duties on 1 March 2003. 2004-173 was later amended by Office Order No. The antecedents follow. Jr. concurrent with his duties as Vice President for Special Projects. 2005-0284 and reiterating the reasons he cited in his previous letter. the latter order stating that respondent was designated as OIC of the Power Systems Reliability Group (PSRG). 700010-CY2003 VisMin Operations & Maintenance. to handle Special Projects. 2004-1229 already exceeded one (1) year. On 19 January 2004. Jr. Office Order No. respectively. appointed Venusto D. SP No.R. National Transmission Corporation & Civil Service Commission. Hamoy. 7 Yet on 15 February 2005.8 On 16 February 2005.10Respondent was thus constrained to write another letter to Ortiz. Venusto D. TC 20030073 dated 5 February 2003. asking that he be returned to his original assignment as Vice President of VisMin Operations & Maintenance. 2004-173 and No. Hamoy. "under the Office of the President and CEO. monitoring and control of all activities related to the sale of petitioner’s sub-transmission assets and placed under his supervision certain personnel of the Sub-Transmission Divestment Department. 2004-173 detailing respondent to petitioner’s Power Center-Diliman.

061840 promulgated on 16 October 2006. such movement was a reassignment and not a mere detail. which indicated that his appointment is to the position of Vice President under "Item No.22 The Court of Appeals also discussed the various personnel movements effected on respondent. 15 the CSC denied respondent’s appeal.On 1 March 2005. a corresponding Office Order would be issued reassigning respondent as head of the PSRG. Ortiz issued a memorandum informing respondent that his detail to the President’s Office was no longer in effect and. his reassignment could not exceed one (1) year per Memorandum Circular No.20 the Court of Appeals held that only presidential appointees belong to the third-level or career executive service. as amended by Office Order No. should the Board confirm it." The position of respondent being station-specific. TC 20032007. and thus he could be reassigned or transferred from one organizational unit to another within the same agency. that is. 2. but his motion was denied by the CSC through Resolution No. occupies a second. the position to which respondent was appointed was classified as a third-level position. It found that respondent failed to show that his reassignment was tainted with abuse of discretion. According to the CSC. Thus. and that his designation and reassignment had both been done to meet the needs of the company. 19 and Office of the Ombudsman v. the CSC ruled that his detail did not exceed the one-year period. Thus. in view of the vacancy created by the expiration of the temporary appointment of the Vice President of the PSRG. 061030 dated 8 June 2006. Citing the Administrative Code. 16 Moreover. from his station at the office of the Vice President VisMin Operations & . Civil Service Commission. the Board issued Resolution No. without violating his right to security of tenure. 12 On 27 April 2005. TC 2005-018. which was not station-specific. He further stated that the matter of reassignment would be formally raised at the Board meeting and. 33. as it was superseded initially by his reassignment. when he reported to his new assignment as "Vice President of Special Projects" per Office Order No. 2004-173.level position only. 18 Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation v. respondent. Respondent appealed to the CSC. since the said form specifically referred to petitioner’s Board Resolution No. without making him suffer reduction in salary status and rank. 14 In Resolution No. 700010-VisMin Operations & Maintenance. 17 Respondent brought the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) which disagreed with the findings of the CSC. since there was a movement from one organizational unit to another within the same department or agency. despite the absence of a place of assignment in CSC Form No. 2004-1229. and announcing the opening of selection for the position of Vice President for VisMin Operations & Maintenance. 13 approving and confirming respondent’s reassignment to PSRG.21 The appellate court also ruled that respondent’s position was station-specific. Civil Service Commission. praying for the annulment of Resolution No. Respondent sought reconsideration of the decision. having been appointed by petitioner’s president and not the President of the Philippines. 2005-0284 on the ground that the reassignment violated his security of tenure. TC 2005-018 and Office Order No. respondent was designated as its OIC.

" e. in fact. was also a nullity because it extended further his original reassignment. was appointed to a station-specific position. it concluded that while respondent’s position.Maintenance to the Office of the President and CEO.26 On the other hand. 23 Finally. he is not under the Career Executive Service (CES). The third personnel movement on 16 February 2005. thus. d. rules. petitioner invokes Memorandum Circular No. considering that he had to spend for his own travel expenses to Cebu City to be with his family. Respondent remained in his place of reassignment beyond 16 February 2005 because he was designated additional duties.27 The petition has no merit. In arguing that respondent belongs to the CES. the appointment was made despite respondent’s vigorous objection. respondent maintains that he was appointed to a second-level position and. as TransCo Vice President as a mere second level and not a third level position. as OIC of the PSRG. He adds that he was. Moreover. Positions covered by the Career Executive Service (a) x x x . he claims that his reassignments were made in violation of the rules and constitute constructive dismissal. said the Court of Appeals. petitioner imputes the following errors to the Court of Appeals. series of 1994 and prevailing jurisprudence.25 Before this Court. appointed to a station-specific position. Jr. in classifying the first movement of Hamoy from his original assignment in the VisMin Operations and Maintenance to the office of the president as a "reassignment" and not a ‘detail. thus: a. c. rank and salary had remained unchanged throughout the said movements. and regulations. but its motion was denied on 7 August 2007 for lack of merit. in declaring that presidential appointment is a requirement for a position to be classified as belonging to the third level thus disregarding the clear provisions of CSC Memorandum Circular No. he suffered much financial deprivation. b. Jr. which reads in part: 1.24 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. in declaring that Hamoy’s reassignment was not made in accordance with civil service laws. in classifying the position held by Hamoy. 21. 21. in holding that Hamoy. virtually extending his reassignment beyond the one-year period. and worse.

2. Regional Director. 1. including government owned and controlled corporations with original charters are embraced within the Career Executive Service provided that they meet the following criteria: . Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service Board. 31 Positions in the CES under the Administrative Code include those of Undersecretary. all other third level positions of equivalent category in all branches and instrumentalities of the national government. third-level positions in the Civil Service are only those belonging to the Career Executive Service. the position is a career position. the position is above division chief level. Civil . 3. trades. The Administrative Code specifies the positions in the Civil Service as follows: Section 8. and scientific positions which involve professional. Bureau Director.—( 1) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows: (a) The first level shall include clerical. Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation 29 to show that a presidential appointment is not required before a position in a government corporation is classified as included in the CES.32 Simply put. crafts and custodial service positions which involve non-professional or sub-professional work in a nonsupervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) 28 and Erasmo v. or those appointed by the President of the Philippines. This was the same ruling handed down by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Assistant Secretary. Assistant Regional Director. all of whom are appointed by the President. (b) The second level shall include professional. and (c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service. the duties and responsibilities of the position require the performance of executive and managerial functions. technical.(b) In addition to the above identified positions and other positions of the same category which had been previously classified and included in the CES. technical or scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief levels. 30 We are not convinced. Classes of positions in the Career Service. Petitioner also cites Caringal v.

CES positions in the President. Settling the issue. the CSC disapproved the Office of the Ombudsman’s (OMB’s) request for approval of the proposed qualification standards for the Director II position in the Central Administrative Service and Finance Management Service. Caringal and Erasmo cited by petitioner are not in point. In the said case. this Court ruled thus: Thus. the Ombudsman is the appointing authority for all officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman. except the Deputy Ombudsmen. confers on him security of tenure in the CES. It will result either in (1) vesting the appointing power for non. far from holding that presidential appointment is not required of a position to be included in the CES. not by the President. There. The OMB proposed that said position required "Career Service Professional/Relevant Eligibility for Second Level position. in . On this basis alone." According to the CSC. As this Court ruled in Office of the Ombudsman v. xxx" (emphasis supplied) Under the Constitution. persons occupying positions in the CES are presidential appointees.34 Respondent was appointed Vice-President of VisMin Operations & Maintenance by Transco President and CEO Alan Ortiz. respondent cannot be considered as part of the CES.Service Commission. the CES covers presidential appointees only. Thus. we learn from Caringal that the appointment by the President completes the attainment of the CES rank. and not by the President of the Republic. As such. the Director II position belonged to third-level eligibility and is thus covered by the Career Executive Service. This process completes the official’s membership in the CES and most importantly. an incumbent of a CES position may qualify for appointment to a CES rank. a person occupying the Position of Director II in the Central Administrative Service or Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman is appointed by the Ombudsman. he is neither embraced in the CES nor does he need to possess CES eligibility. More importantly.33 wherein the Court declared that the CES covers presidential appointees only. thus: Appointment to CES Rank Upon conferment of a CES eligibility and compliance with the other requirements prescribed by the Board. To classify other positions not included in the above enumeration as covered by the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure will lead to unconstitutional and unlawful consequences. CSC: "From the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code. the Court ruled that appointees to CES positions who do not possess the required CES eligibility do not enjoy security of tenure. Appointment to a CES rank is made by the President upon the recommendation of the Board.

1993 and Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) v. Buenaflor issued Office Memorandum No. Civil Service Commission. Title I-A.R. that the Third Level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service (CES). To reiterate. the Commission has promulgated several policies and issuances identifying positions in the Career Service above Division Chief Level performing executive and managerial functions as belonging to the Third Level covered by the Career Executive Service (CES) and those outside the CES. the Third Level covers only the positions in the CES as enumerated in the Administrative Code of 1987 and those identified by the CESB as of equivalent rank. CSC Acting Chairman Cesar D. it is clear. xxx While the above-cited ruling of the Supreme Court refer to particular positions in the OMB and HIGC. however. all of whom are appointed by the President of the Philippines. Regional Director. that the intention was to make the doctrine enunciated therein applicable to similar and comparable positions in the bureaucracy. (2) including in the CES a position not held by presidential appointee. Positions in the Career Executive Service consists of Undersecretary. qualification standards. thus. superseded and abandoned. the issue as to whether a particular position belongs to the Third Level has been settled by jurisprudence enshrined in Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation v. Assistant Bureau Director. Bureau Director. 2007. pronouncements and/or issuances of the Commission insofar as the requirement if third level eligibility to non-CES positions is concerned. contrary to the Administrative Code. No. 2008. Assistant Secretary.R. or. G. where the Honorable Supreme Court ruled citing the provision of Section 7(3) Chapter 2. which states in part: For years. In view thereof. in violation of the Constitution. all of whom are appointed by the President. the doctrine enshrined in these Supreme Court decisions has ipso facto nullified all resolutions. It will result either: in (1) vesting the appointing power for non-CES positions in the President. Book V of Administrative Code of 1987. However. Consequently. Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB). x x x36 (Emphasis supplied) . on 9 April 2008. contrary to the Administrative Code 35 Interestingly. 6.violation of the Constitution. OM No. G. 95450 dated March 19. series of 2008 and all other issuances of the Commission inconsistent with the afore-stated law and jurisprudence are likewise deemed repealed. or (2) including in the CES a position not held by presidential appointee. requiring third level eligibility for purposes of permanent appointment and security of tenure. Assistant Regional Director. No. Civil Service Commission. 27. 162215 dated July 30. To classify other positions not included in the above enumeration as covered by the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure will lead to unconstitutional and unlawful consequences. s.

Station-specific appointment does not refer to a specified plantilla item number since it is used for purposes of identifying the particular position to be filled or occupied by the employee. 3. divisions. Reassignment outside of geographical location may be from one . Reassignment shall be governed by the following rules: 1. Reassignment outside geographical location if with consent shall have no limit. Reassignment of third level appointees is governed by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. Reassignment of employees with station-specific place of work indicated in their respective appointments shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one (1) year. petitioner can no longer invoke Section 1(b) of Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 21. Personnel movements involving transfer or detail should not confused with reassignment since they are governed by separate rules. 1. 6. reassignment to an organizational unit within the same building or from one building to another or contiguous to each other in one work area or compound is allowed. the one-year maximum shall not apply. These rules shall apply only to employees appointed to first and second level positions in the career and non-career services. it being inconsistent with the afore-quoted Office Memorandum and thus deemed repealed by no less than the CSC itself. we now determine the validity of respondent’s reassignment from Vice President for VisMin Operations & Maintenance to Vice President of Special Projects under Office Order No. if it is without consent. 2. 2004-1229. reassignment of employees whose appointments do not specifically indicate the particular office or place of work has no definite period unless otherwise revoked or recalled by the Head of Agency. The Revised Rules on Reassignment37 provides in part: Sec. Thus.Thus. the Civil Service Commission or a competent court. 5. Having settled the nature of respondent’s position. 6. 2004-173. and departments within an organization. reassignment shall be for one (1) year only. Organizational unit refers to sections. However. If appointment is not station-specific. 4. as amended by Office Order No. An appointment is considered station-specific when the particular office or station where the position is located is specifically indicated on the face of the appointment paper. x x x. If an appointment is not station-specific.

Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal x x x a) Reassignment of an employee to perform duties and responsibilities inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities of his/her position such as from a position of dignity to a more servile or menial job. CS Form No.38 [Emphasis supplied). and e) Reassignment that is done indiscriminately or whimsically because the law is not intended as a convenient shield for the appointing/disciplining authority to harass or oppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promoting public interest. 33). the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claims that respondent was not appointed to a station-specific position because his appointment paper. he is entitled to security of tenure with respect only to the position of Vice President. the letter of appointment itself makes specific reference to a Board Resolution. c) Reassignment to an existing office but the employee is not given any definite duties and responsibilities. In this case." held that his appointment was station-specific. and he may be reassigned from his original assignment in the VisMin Operations & Maintenance to his new assignment in the Power Systems Reliability Group. d) Reassignment that will cause significant financial dislocation or will cause difficulty or hardship on the part of the employee because of geographical location. does not indicate any specific work station. The letter of appointment states: . TC 2003-2007. 700010-VisMin Operations and Maintenance. 41 We do not agree with petitioner. relying on Board Resolution No. 33.1avvphi1 7.39 This being the case.40 On the other hand. thereby rendering the Board Resolution an integral part of the letter of appointment.Regional Office (RO) to another RO or from the RO to the Central Office (CO) and vice-versa. by virtue of which respondent was appointed as Vice President for VisMin Operations and Maintenance. It is not disputed that an appointment is considered station-specific when the particular office or station where the position is located is specifically indicated on the face of the letter of appointment (Form No. which indicated that respondent’s appointment was to the position of Vice President under "Item No. b) Reassignment to an office not in the existing organizational structure.

42 (Emphasis supplied) Sumasainyo. Jr. . ALAN T. Pahina ______. Ito ay magkakabisa sa petsa ng pagganap ng tungkulin subalit di aaga sa petsa ng pagpirma ng puno ng tanggapan o appointing authority. Transmission HAMOY. 2003-07 DATED 2/5/03 bilang kapalit ni N/A na N/A at ayon sa Plantilya Item Blg.320) piso. TC 2003-007 xxx WHEREAS. 2003 The pertinent portions of Board Resolution No. NO. Lungsod ng Quezon ng TRANSMISSION MR.Republika NATIONAL Diliman. VENUSTO National Diliman. Item No. Ang appointment na ito ay REEMPLOYMENT PURSUANT TO TRANSCO BOARD RES. the following executives are hereby appointed as follows: a) x x x xxx j). TC 2003-007 read. President & CEO Puno ng Tanggapan MAR Petsa ng Pagpirma ORTIZ. Hamoy. Quezon City Pilipinas CORPORATION D. after careful evaluation and deliberation of the qualifications of the applicants consistent with the Board’s Guidelines. JR. 700010-VisMin Operations &MaintenanceMr. thus: RESOLUTION NO. 01 Ph. Venusto D. 7000010 CY2003.D. Corporation MR. HAMOY: Kayo ay nahirang na (VICE PRESIDENT JG-18) (VICE PRESIDENT SG-28) na may katayuang PERMANENT sa Pambansang Korporasyon sa Transmisyon sa pasahod na EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS ( P856.

In addition. 33 or the letter of appointment that the appointment was issued pursuant to Board Resolution No. who is respondent. Quezon City to handle Special Projects on 16 February 2004 was a reassignment.1avvphi1. As "VisMin" stands for the VisayasMindanao. is a movement from one agency to another. it is clear from the filled-up Form No.1avvphi1 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. or one year thereafter. However. Costs against the petitioner. such movement should last only until 16 February 2005. A detail. Having been appointed to a station-specific position. the reassignments were made without his consent." indicated that respondent’s work station was the VisMin Operations & Maintenance. necessarily has to hold office in Cebu where petitioner has offices for its Visayas-Mindanao Operations. When respondent was designated as OIC of the PSRG. TC 2003-007. SO ORDERED . All told. whatever reassignment may be extended to respondent cannot exceed one year. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2007 and 7 August 2007. on the other hand. Necessarily therefore.43 (Emphasis supplied) In other words. the petition is DENIED. the Vice-President for VisMin Operations. respondent was designated additional duties on 16 February 2005. are AFFIRMED. status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. as he was moved from one department to another within the same agency. February 5. 2003. despite his objections. The appointment paper’s explicit reference to the Board Resolution. his reassignment was extended once more. 44 Respondent’s movement from the Office of the Vice-President Vis-Min Operations & Management in January of 2004 to the Office of the President and CEO in Diliman. These personnel movements are clear violations of the Revised Rules. which in turn cited "Item No.APPROVED AND CONFIRMED. the Court finds no reason to overturn the Decision of the Court of Appeals. 700010-VisMin Operations & Maintenance. which further extended his stay in the Diliman office. respectively. nay.zw+ WHEREFORE.