Cariño v. Daoas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Cristina Jenny Cariño, initially appointed Accountant III, was reassigned by ONCC Executive Director David Daoas to a Technical Assistant position. Cariño alleged this reassignment was retaliatory for her refusal to sign a disbursement voucher and that the new position was non-existent. She subsequently filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against Regional Director Rosalina Bistoyong, who allegedly pressured her to withdraw the complaint. 2. Procedural History: Following her refusal to sign the voucher and her administrative complaint, Cariño was reassigned to ONCC Region II. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Director opined that the reassignment was not in order. Despite this, Daoas and Bistoyong appealed to the CSC. Cariño continued to report to her original station in Region I, leading to her being declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and subsequently dropped from the rolls. The CSC affirmed her dismissal. Cariño appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied her petition. This denial led to the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petition for review on certiorari assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Cariño argues that her termination is invalid, that a void reassignment order does not impose an obligation to comply before being declared illegal, and that the notice of separation was improperly handled. She contends that her refusal to comply with the reassignment was justified by the CSC Regional Director's legal opinion, and therefore, she should not have been considered AWOL. The Supreme Court granted due course to the petition, finding the reassignment invalid and ordering Cariño's reinstatement or equivalent position with back pay.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IS VALID, considering the Civil Service Commission's pronouncement that the reassignment was invalid and Cariño could not be transferred without her consent. WHETHER OR NOT A REASSIGNMENT ORDER THAT IS NULL AND VOID, BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF THE PETITIONER, IMPOSES UPON HER THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH IT BEFORE IT IS DECLARED ILLEGAL, especially when the petitioner's refusal to report was based on the legal opinion of the CSC Regional Office. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN RULING THAT THE NOTICE/ORDER OF SEPARATION ALTHOUGH SENT FIVE (5) DAYS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE PETITIONER'S DISMISSAL BUT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER EIGHTEEN (18) DAYS AFTER ITS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 12, SERIES OF 1994, given the Supreme Court's disagreement with the appellate court's stance and the finding that Cariño was justified in not complying due to the CSC Regional Office's legal opinion.
Ruling
The petition is given due course. The respondent is directed to effect the reinstatement of petitioner to her former position or, if no longer feasible, to another position of equivalent rank and compensation. Respondent is also ordered to pay petitioner her back salaries counted from the time she received the April 29, 1997 memorandum ordering her to refrain from reporting for work in Region I.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the termination and the obligation to comply with a void reassignment order: The Court held that the validity of the reassignment was already settled by the Civil Service Commission's pronouncement that it was not valid and that Cariño could not be transferred without her consent. While reassignment is generally a prerogative of the appointing authority, it is proscribed without the consent of officers appointed to a specific station, as in Cariño's case. An unconsented transfer of an employee appointed to a particular station amounts to a removal. The Court disagreed with the appellate court's stance that Cariño should have complied with the reassignment order despite its questionable validity. The Court emphasized that Cariño's refusal to report to Region II was based on the legal opinion of the CSC Regional Office, which declared the reassignment "not in order." This legal opinion provided a justifiable basis for Cariño not to heed the reassignment order pending the resolution of the appeal filed by the private respondents. Therefore, Cariño could not be considered AWOL. On whether Cariño should have complied with the reassignment order before it was declared illegal: The Court found that Cariño was justified in not complying with the reassignment order because her basis was not a mere "firm belief" but the legal opinion of a regional office of the Civil Service Commission. The CSC Regional Office's opinion that the reassignment was "not in order" and that her "present assignment at the ONCC Regional Office No. 1 must not be disturbed" should be respected pending appeal. It was the private respondents who appealed the CSC Regional Office's opinion, and their appeal was eventually denied by the Commission, which declared the reassignment invalid and ordered Cariño's return to Region I. Thus, Cariño could not be considered AWOL for not reporting to Region II, as she was reporting for work in Region I until she was ordered to refrain from doing so. On the correctness of the Court of Appeals' ruling regarding the Notice/Order of Separation: The Court found merit in the petition. The Court reiterated that the reassignment was not valid and that Cariño could not be transferred without her consent. The Court noted that Cariño continued to report for work in Region I despite the reassignment order and was only ordered to refrain from reporting by Bistoyong on April 29, 1997. The dropping of Cariño from the rolls was sustained by the Court of Appeals based on the CSC's mandate that a reassigned employee must comply with the order until restrained or declared illegal. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Cariño was justified in not complying due to the CSC Regional Office's legal opinion. The Court concluded that Cariño could not be considered AWOL and ordered her reinstatement and payment of back salaries.
Main Doctrine
An unconsented transfer of an employee appointed to a specific station amounts to a removal. An employee is justified in not heeding a reassignment order if a regional office of the Civil Service Commission has issued a legal opinion that the reassignment is not in order, and such opinion should be respected pending appeal.