MUNICIPALITY OF ISULAN, ISULAN, SULTAN KUDARAT REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL MAYOR DIOSDADO G. PALLASIGUE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ELIAS S. SEGURA, JR., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEE.

Municipality of Isulan versus Segura

The Case

This is the case of the Municipality of Isulan versus Elias Segura, Junior. The Municipality of Isulan, in the province of Sultan Kudarat, represented by its Municipal Mayor Diosdado Pallasigue, brought this recourse against Segura, who had served as the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator. The dispute concerns two personnel actions taken against Segura: a reassignment order that stripped him of his supervisory functions, and a later order dropping him from the roll of employees for alleged absences. The case matters because it fixes the limits of the local chief executive's discretionary power to reassign, and because it teaches that a reassignment which reduces rank, status, or salary is void, and that no employee can be penalized for absenting himself from an office to which he was never validly assigned.

Procedural History

Segura challenged the reassignment before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Twelve in Cotabato City, which treated his letter as an appeal and ruled in his favor, directing his restoration to his former position. The Civil Service Commission dismissed the Mayor's appeal and affirmed, ordering restoration with payment of monetary benefits. The Mayor's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43.

In a separate track, after the Mayor dropped Segura from the roll of employees, Segura appealed to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Twelve, which granted the appeal and ordered his immediate reinstatement. The Mayor's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his petition for review before the Civil Service Commission Central Office was likewise dismissed, as was his motion for reconsideration. He then filed a second petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals consolidated the two petitions and denied them, affirming the challenged decisions. The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review.

Facts

On 14 September 2007, Mayor Pallasigue issued a memorandum relieving Segura of his duties in the Municipal Planning and Development Office and reassigning him to the Office of the Municipal Mayor, effective immediately. The Mayor designated another official as acting Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator. In his new assignment, Segura was asked to review and study the feasibility of establishing the Municipal Economic Enterprise and Development Office, and he was expressly relieved of his duties in the planning office. He complained that he had no definite position, that he had lost his supervisory functions, and that the order was issued without his consent and without a fixed period.

The Civil Service Commission Regional Office Twelve invalidated the reassignment, and the Civil Service Commission affirmed, ordering Segura's restoration with monetary benefits. When Segura sought to reassume his position, the Mayor refused, invoking that the regional decision was not yet final and executory. On 22 September 2008, the Mayor issued an executive order dropping Segura from the roll of employees for having incurred more than thirty days of absence without official leave.

The records later showed that Segura had submitted his daily time record for August 2008, that the acting coordinator received it, that the payroll reflected his name, and that the acting coordinator attested that Segura reported for work that month. Notably, the Mayor had approved a municipal ordinance abolishing the Municipal Economic Enterprise and Development Office upon his own initiative, only to reassign Segura eleven days later to study the feasibility of re-establishing that very office.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Twelve properly acquired jurisdiction over Segura's letter, which the Mayor insists was a complaint rather than an appeal.
• Whether or not the reassignment order issued by the Mayor was valid.
• Whether or not the order dropping Segura from the roll of employees was valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule One of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Decisions of national agencies and local government units within their geographical boundaries relative to personnel actions and non-disciplinary cases brought before it on appeal.

This provision supplies the regional office's appellate jurisdiction over non-disciplinary personnel actions such as a reassignment.

Section 26, paragraph 7, of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Reassignment. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency: Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary.

This is the yardstick against which the validity of the reassignment is measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the reassignment order is itself a decision that may be appealed to the regional office, and that Segura's letter partook of the nature of an appeal. The reassignment fell within the coverage of a non-disciplinary case. The Court added that the Mayor had acquiesced to the regional office's jurisdiction by filing a comment, an appeal memorandum, and a motion for reconsideration without ever raising the question of jurisdiction, and that active participation bars a party from later impugning jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held the reassignment void because it clearly involved a reduction in rank, status, and salary. First, Segura was deprived of his supervisory functions and had no personnel to supervise. Second, he was deprived of the emoluments attached to his former position, since his representation and transportation allowance was stopped and given to his replacement. Third, the reassignment amounted to constructive dismissal, because the new office was not conducive to work and required him to travel a distance. Fourth, the Court ascribed bad faith to the Mayor, finding it illogical that he would approve the abolition of the Municipal Economic Enterprise and Development Office and then, eleven days later, reassign Segura to study its re-establishment. The Court stressed that the power to reassign is discretionary but must not be exercised whimsically to remove an employee under the pretext of public interest.

On the third issue, the Court held the order dropping Segura from the roll of employees void. The evidence showed he had reported for work, and more importantly, since the reassignment was void, he could not have incurred absences in an office to which he was never validly assigned. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or salary violate an employee's security of tenure, which is assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Security of tenure covers not only employees removed without cause, but also cases of unconsented transfers and reassignments, which are tantamount to illegal/constructive removal.

The Court concluded that a government employee reinstated for having been illegally dismissed is considered as not having left his office, so his position never became vacant and any appointment replacing him is null and void from the start.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. A reassignment is valid only if it does not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary; a reassignment that is indefinite and reduces rank, status, or salary is a constructive removal from the service, and even a diminution in any one of these is enough to invalidate it. The local chief executive's power to reassign is discretionary but may not be exercised whimsically to remove an employee indirectly under the pretext of public interest. Because a void reassignment confers no valid post, an employee cannot be dropped from the rolls for absences from an office to which he was never lawfully assigned. And an employee reinstated after illegal dismissal is deemed never to have left his office, so any appointment made to replace him is void from the beginning.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petitions and affirmed the decisions of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Twelve directing Segura's immediate reinstatement to his former position as Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a reassignment that reduces rank, status, or salary is void, and an employee cannot be penalized for absenting himself from an office to which he was never validly assigned. Examiners like to use this case on the limits of the local chief executive's reassignment power, on constructive dismissal, and on the doctrine that a reinstated employee is deemed never to have left his office.