Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
RUSSEL ULYSSES
Petitioner, - versus - JOCELYN LB. BLANCO, in her capacity as the Regional
Director, Regional Office No. V, Department of Trade and Industry, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 190422
Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR.,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, REYES,
and PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: 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 DTIs 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 DTIs provincial office in Albay
(DTI-Albay). Nieves appealed his
reassignment to the CSCs Regional Office in
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
latters 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 Blancos 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,
The Civil Service Commission Regional Office
No. V, Rawis,
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:
x x x x
6.
Reassignment outside geographical location if with consent shall have no
limit. However, if it is without
consent, 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 x
From the foregoing it is clear that after the
lapse of one year from Nieves reassignment, he must be reinstated to his
original assignment in DTI-Sorsogon. A
perusal of his submitted appointment would show that his appointment is not
station-specific. However, this shall
not prevent the reinstatement of Nieves to his original station in
DTI-Sorsogon. Due to the fact that
Nieves was reassigned to DTI-Albay which is outside the geographical location
of DTI-Sorsogon, said reassignment may only be allowed for a period of one (1)
year as it was made without the consent of Nieves. Verily, after the lapse of the period of one
(1) year from his reassignment, Nieves must be reinstated to his original
station.[5]
Blanco
filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Resolution No. 071693 but the
same was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 072374[6]
dated December 17, 2007.
Blanco
then filed a petition for review with the CA, asserting that the CSC acted
without factual and legal basis in directing the reassignment of Nieves in
DTI-Sorsogon. On September 10, 2009, the
CA rendered the herein assailed Decision the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions No. 071693 and
072374, dated August 24, 2007 and December 17, 2007, respectively, of the Civil
Service Commission, with respect to the reinstatement of private respondent
Russel Ulysses I. Nieves, Trade and Industry Development Specialist, to his
original station in DTI-Sorsogon, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioners Application for the Issuance of
Temporary Restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is now MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED.[7]
In
reversing the CSCs disposition with regard to the propriety of Nieves
reassignment back to his original station in DTI-Sorsogon, the CA asserted that
the phrase reassignment 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. Accordingly, 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, i.e. from
DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay. Thus:
From the foregoing, 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. Since the
reassignment of respondent from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay is within same
regional office which is Region V, the same shall have no limit even if without
his consent, as long as there is no reduction in rank status and salary.[8]
Nieves
sought reconsideration[9]
of the Decision dated September 10, 2009 but the same was denied by the CA in
its Resolution[10]
dated November 24, 2009.
Unperturbed, 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. 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.
Further, he avers that the CA should have accorded respect and finality
to the CSCs interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Rules on
Reassignment.
On the other hand, Blanco, in her
Comment,[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. Thus, she asserts that Nieves could be
reassigned anywhere within the geographical location of Region V without his
consent even for more than one year, provided that there is no diminution in his
rank, salary or status.
The petition lacks merit.
The CSC, being
the central agency mandated to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and
regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil
Service Law and other pertinent laws, has the power to
interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them, with its
interpretation being accorded great weight and ordinarily controls the
construction of the courts.[12]
However, courts will not
hesitate to set aside such executive interpretation when it is clearly
erroneous, or when there is no ambiguity in the rule, or when the language or words
used are clear and plain or readily understandable to any ordinary reader.[13] This case falls within the exceptions.
At
the crux of the instant controversy is the proper construction of the
provisions of Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Reassignment which, in part,
reads:
Sec.
6. x x x
x x x x
Reassignment
shall be governed by the following rules:
1.
These rules shall apply only to employees appointed to
first and second level positions in the career and non-career services. Reassignment of third level appointees is
governed by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1.
2.
Personnel movements involving transfer or detail
should not be confused with reassignment since they are governed by separate
rules.
3.
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. 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.
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.
4.
If
appointment is not station-specific,
the one-year maximum period shall not apply.
Thus, 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 Civil Service
Commission or a competent court.
5.
If an appointment is not station-specific,
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. Organizational unit refers to
sections, divisions, and departments within an organization.
6.
Reassignment
outside geographical location
if with consent shall have no limit.
However, if it is without consent, 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.
7.
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 (Emphasis
supplied)
The language of the Revised Rules on
Reassignment is plain and unambiguous.
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.
On the other hand, the reassignment of an employee whose appointment is
not station-specific has no definite period unless otherwise revoked or
recalled by the Head of the Agency, the CSC or a competent court.
Nevertheless, if the employee without
a station-specific place of work is reassigned outside the geographical
location of his/her present place of work, then the following rules apply: first, if the reassignment is with the
consent of the employee concerned, then the period of the same shall have no
limit; second, if the reassignment is
without the consent of the employee concerned, then the same should not exceed
the maximum period of one year.
Here, it is undisputed that Nieves
appointment as a Trade and Industry Development Specialist is not
station-specific. Thus, the period of
his reassignment to DTI-Albay is indefinite, unless otherwise revoked or
recalled by the Head of the Agency, the CSC or a competent court. Further, since the reassignment of Nieves was
within the same regional office, i.e.
from DTI-Sorsogon to DTI-Albay, the one-year period limitation does not apply.
Nieves insistence that a
reassignment outside geographical location should likewise include a
reassignment from one provincial office to another provincial office is
untenable.
To stress, the Revised Rules on
Reassignment has defined, albeit ostensively, what constitutes a reassignment
outside geographical location. It
states that [r]eassignment
outside geographical location may be from one [r]egional [o]ffice x x x to
another [regional office] or from the [regional office] to the [c]entral
[o]ffice x x x and vice-versa.[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; (2) reassignment from the regional office to the
central office; and (3) reassignment from the central office to the regional
office.
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.
We do not agree.
It is true that the use of the word
may ordinarily operates to confer discretion.
However, this term may be construed, as it is in this case clearly
intended to be, in a mandatory and restrictive sense.[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.
Moreover, if we are to follow Nieves
assertion that the instances stated in the said provision are merely examples,
then every reassignment effected by the various offices could be considered as
a reassignment outside geographical location depending on the discretion of
the CSC. Surely, this is not what the
Revised Rules on Reassignment intended.
Thus, 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.
Further, Nieves assertion that his
reassignment to DTI-Albay constitutes constructive dismissal as it caused him
significant financial dislocation is also devoid of merit. This is a mere allegation that Nieves utterly
failed to substantiate. It bears
stressing that a reassignment is presumed to be regular and made
in the interest of public service.[16]
Anent Nieves prayer for an award of
moral damages, we deny the same for lack of legal and factual bases.
All told, 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.
WHEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated September 10,
2009 and the Resolution dated November 24, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 102174 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Senior Associate Justice
|
On leave PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
|
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice
|
On leave JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice
|
|
MARIA Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* On
official leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 33-42.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Melendres, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,
377 Phil. 275, 291 (1999).
[14] Section
6(a)(6), Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel Actions, as
amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 02-05.
[15] See
Benito v. Public Service Commission,
86 Phil. 624, 626 (1950).
[16] Section 6(a)(7), Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other
Personnel Actions, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 02-05.