Plaza II v. Cassion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Prior to Republic Act No. 7160, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) handled basic social services. Upon the enactment of the Local Government Code, certain DSWD functions were devolved to local government units. The City of Butuan, through its Sangguniang Panglungsod, authorized its City Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the devolution of DSWD services, personnel, assets, and liabilities to the city. Consequently, the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO) was reconstituted, with national DSWD employees being integrated. The original CSSDO employees, led by Carolina M. Cassion, refused to recognize the newly designated head, Virginia V. Tuazon, and to report to the new office location, asserting the illegality of the executive order and designation. Procedural History: Following the respondents' persistent refusal to report to the new office despite multiple directives, the City Mayor initiated administrative proceedings, leading to charges of grave misconduct and insubordination and a 60-day preventive suspension. The respondents' complaint against the Mayor for violating Civil Service Law was dismissed. Upon expiration of their suspension, they expressed willingness to return to work but insisted on their original office. The Mayor then sought guidance from the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which advised that the respondents could be dropped from the rolls under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993. The Mayor issued an order to this effect. The respondents appealed to the CSC, which affirmed the Mayor's order. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the CSC resolutions and the Mayor's executive order, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the CSC resolutions that dropped the respondents from the rolls and in invalidating Executive Order No. 06-92, which directed the devolution of DSWD employees to the city's CSSDO. The petitioners argue that the Mayor was empowered to issue the executive order and designate an officer-in-charge, and that the respondents' refusal to report to the new office constituted absence without leave, justifying their dismissal from service. They further assert that the dropping from the rolls was a non-disciplinary action and thus did not require prior notice and hearing, as provided by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Civil Service Commission Resolutions and Executive Order No. 06-92, which ordered the dropping of respondents from the rolls, and whether respondents were denied due process when they were dropped from the rolls. Whether Executive Order No. 06-92, reconstituting the CSSDO and designating Virginia Tuazon as OIC, was validly issued. Whether the physical transfer of the CSSDO office to the DSWD building constituted a violation of respondents' security of tenure. On the interpretation of devolution under the Local Government Code and the nature of dropping from the rolls.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It affirmed the Civil Service Commission Resolutions No. 94-4626 and 94-6243, upholding the order of Mayor Plaza dropping private respondents from the rolls. The Court ruled that the physical transfer of the office was a valid exercise of management prerogative in the interest of public service and did not violate respondents' security of tenure. Furthermore, the Court held that dropping an employee from the rolls due to prolonged absence without leave is a non-disciplinary action and does not require prior notice and hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of dropping respondents from the rolls and due process: The Court reiterated that CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, clearly provides that officers and employees absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) and may be dropped from the service without prior notice. This action is non-disciplinary in nature, meaning it is not an administrative sanction. Therefore, the assertion that respondents were denied due process for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard is untenable, as prior notice and hearing are not prerequisites for dropping an employee from the rolls under these circumstances. The records showed that respondents were absent from April 1993 until they were dropped, and their insistence on returning only to their old office was deemed an untenable legal excuse. On the validity of Executive Order No. 06-92 and the designation of Virginia Tuazon: The Court found that Mayor Plaza was empowered to issue EO No. 06-92 to implement the devolution mandated by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160). As the local chief executive, he had the authority to reorganize the CSSDO and designate an officer-in-charge until a regular head was appointed. While the Sangguniang Panglungsod's concurrence was required for the appointment of a department head, the Court noted that it later confirmed Tuazon's appointment. The Court emphasized that the proper course of action for respondents would have been to comply with the Mayor's directives and then challenge the EO before the proper forum, rather than refusing to report for work. On the alleged violation of security of tenure: The Court clarified that the change in respondents' place of work from the original CSSDO office to the DSWD building was not a transfer of position, which involves movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level, or salary without a break in service. Instead, it was merely a physical relocation of their office to a new one, done in the interest of public service. Such a relocation does not constitute a violation of an employee's security of tenure, as there were no new movements or appointments from one position to another. The respondents' refusal to report to the new office was therefore without legal basis. On the interpretation of devolution under the Local Government Code and the nature of dropping from the rolls: The Court explained that Section 17 of the Local Government Code authorizes the devolution of personnel, assets, liabilities, records, and facilities of national government agencies to local government units. Executive Order No. 503 further governed this process, stating that local chief executives are responsible for devolved functions and may delegate powers. Devolved permanent personnel are to be automatically reappointed by the local chief executive. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1992, also provided for the automatic creation of absorbed positions and the automatic reappointment of devolved permanent personnel, allowing local executives to assign them to units where their qualifications are best suited pending the completion of new organizational structures. The Court underscored that dropping from the rolls is a non-disciplinary action, executory but appealable to the CSC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order or notice. It is distinct from administrative sanctions that require due process. The provision allowing an employee to be dropped for absence without approved leave for at least thirty (30) days, without prior notice, is a specific mode of separation that does not necessitate a formal investigation or hearing, unlike disciplinary actions.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that dropping an employee from the rolls due to prolonged Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) is a non-disciplinary action and does not require prior notice and hearing, provided the employee has been absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave, as per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993. The Court also clarified that a physical transfer of an office to a new location, done in the interest of public service, does not constitute a transfer of position that would violate an employee's security of tenure.