Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SPECIAL FORMER THIRD DIVISION

ENGR. JOCELYN L.B. CA-G.R. SP No. 157960

BLANCO, in her capacity as the
Regional Director of the
Department of Trade and
Industry-Regional Office V,
Petitioner,
Members:

Azcarraga-Jacob, Acting Chairperson

- versus - *Santos, and

Quimpo-Sale, JJ.

CIVIL SERVICE Promulgated:

COMMISSION and ACHILLES
August 31, 2022
V. ALBERTO I., __________________
Respondents.
x- - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RESOLUTION

Quimpo-Sale, J.

This Court, on September 10, 2021, rendered a Decision 1

denying the petition for review of the Decision No. 1803152 and
Resolution No. 18010073 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The dispositive portion of this Court's Decision reads:

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition for review is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner Engr. Jocelyn L.B. Blanco filed the herein Motion

* New member vice Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, per raffle dated March 21, 2022.
1 Decision, September 10, 2021, Rollo, pp. 180-195.
2 Decision No. 180315, July 2, 2018, Rollo, pp. 41-48.
3 Resolution No. 1801007, September 17, 2018, Rollo, pp. 49-53.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 157960
Resolution
Page 2 of 3
===============
for Reconsideration4 of the Decision alleging that private
respondent has not shown that the new duties and
responsibilities given (or will be given) to him are inconsistent
with his current duties and responsibilities such that the same
resulted in a more servile or menial job for him. The reassignment
is presumed to be regular, unless proved otherwise. Private
respondent's reassignment is a valid exercise of petitioner's
management prerogative and does not constitute constructive
dismissal.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC), on the other hand,

filed its Comment5 to the motion arguing that private
respondent's reassignment is not in order as, except for the
general statement that it is in the interest of the service, it failed to
specifically state why he had to be reassigned. There is also no
showing that the reassignment is intended for public interest or
public service.

A review of the motion reveals that the issues raised by

petitioner are the same issues addressed in the petition for
review, and which were already passed upon and resolved in this
Court's Decision. There exists no cogent reason to reconsider the
same.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Motion for Reconsideration is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice
4 Motion for Reconsideration, October 11, 2021, Rollo, pp. 203-209.
5 Comment, April 20, 2022, Rollo, pp. 212-223.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 157960
Resolution
Page 3 of 3
===============

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB
Associate Justice

Original Signed
RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS
Associate Justice