Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City v. Villaroman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman, holding a permanent position as head of the Office of the City Veterinarian (OCV), was reassigned by petitioner Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City to report to the Mayor's secretary for specific assignments via Memorandum No. 33/12. Respondent requested to be restored to his original post but was denied. He filed a petition before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) claiming constructive dismissal. Procedural History: On March 9, 2015, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 17/03 dropping respondent from the roll of employees due to absence without official leave (AWOL) for over 30 days and failure to submit performance evaluation reports. Respondent amended his appeal to the CSC to include the validity of his dropping from the rolls, non-payment of bonus, and deletion from payroll. The CSC ruled that the reassignment was void for constructive dismissal and failure to limit the period of reassignment, but respondent was validly dropped from the rolls due to AWOL and deletion from payroll. The CSC also denied his claim for productivity incentive benefits due to failure to submit performance evaluation reports. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC's decision with modifications, holding the reassignment void, ordering reinstatement with back salaries, and making the productivity incentive benefit contingent on submission of reports. The CA found the dropping from the rolls invalid, citing that an employee cannot incur absences from a void reassignment and that respondent's actions were inconsistent with AWOL. The CA allowed submission of performance reports for the incentive benefit. The Petition: The Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that respondent was validly dropped from the rolls.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman was validly dropped from the rolls due to Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL). Whether respondent's reassignment constituted constructive dismissal. Whether respondent is entitled to productivity incentive benefits.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142879 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman was validly dropped from the rolls due to absence without official leave or AWOL.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent was validly dropped from the rolls due to AWOL: The Court held that while the reassignment order was void for amounting to constructive dismissal, the respondent could still be considered on AWOL. This is because the respondent neither reported for work at his original post at the Office of the City Veterinarian (OCV) nor filed any leave applications during the period he was contesting his reassignment. Instead, he chose to report for work at the Information and Communication Technology Department (ICTD), which the Court found to be an office separate from the OCV with different functions. The Court emphasized that an employee cannot unilaterally decide which office or department they will work in without proper authority or justifiable reason. Therefore, his performance of work in the ICTD could not be counted as attendance at work, making him effectively on AWOL for failing to report for duty for more than thirty (30) days. Consequently, he was correctly dropped from the rolls. On the issue of whether respondent's reassignment constituted constructive dismissal: The Court noted that the petitioner no longer questioned the rulings of the CSC and the CA declaring the reassignment void for amounting to constructive dismissal. The CSC found the reassignment void because it did not provide definite duties and responsibilities and failed to limit the period of reassignment to one year as required by CSC rules. The CA also affirmed this, stating that the reassignment lacked specific duties and responsibilities, which is proscribed under the CSC Revised Rules on Reassignment. On the issue of whether respondent is entitled to productivity incentive benefits: The Court noted that the petitioner no longer questioned the CA's ruling on respondent's entitlement to productivity incentive benefits. The CA held that his claim would be contingent upon the submission of his performance evaluation report and the required ratings under civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The CSC had previously denied the claim due to the respondent's failure to submit performance evaluation reports from July 2010 to December 2014.
Main Doctrine
A government employee cannot be validly dropped from the rolls for Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) if the reassignment order to a new station was void, as the employee cannot be considered absent from a station to which they were improperly assigned. However, if the employee neither reported to their original post nor filed for leave while contesting a void reassignment, and instead reported to an unauthorized office, they may still be considered on AWOL.