SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 234630, June 10, 2019
OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR OF ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, MAYOR EDGARDO D. PAMINTUAN, PETITIONER, v. DR. JOSEFINO E. VILLAROMAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated February 27, 2017 and the Resolution3 dated September 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 1142879, which affirmed with modifications the Decision4 dated July 30, 2015 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Endnotes:
* On leave.
1Rollo, pp. 3-12.
2 Id. at 15-20. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3 Id. at 21.
4 Id. at 25-34. Signed by Commissioners Robert S. Martinez and Nieves L. Osorio. Attested by Director IV Dolores B. Bonifacio.
5 Respondent was appointed as the City Veterinarian, which is considered to be a Department Head position. See id. at 4.
6 Dated December 2, 2014. CA rollo, p. 52.
7 See rollo, pp. 15 and 25.
8 CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
9 December 13, 2014" in the CSC Decision.
10 See rollo, pp. 15 and 28.
11 Dated January 20, 2015. CA rollo, pp. 61-69.
12 See rollo, pp. 15-16 and 27-28.
13 CA rollo, p. 76.
14 See id. See also rollo, pp. 15-16, 25, and 31.
15 See id. at 16 and 28.
16 Dated March 17, 2015. CA rollo, pp. 77-88.
17 See rollo, p. 28. See also Manifestation dated March 26, 2015; CA rollo, pp. 90-91.
18 See CA rollo, p.99.
19 See id. at 18.
20 See petitioner's Comment dated May 15, 2015; CSC Folder, unnumbered pages.
21 Petitioner alleged that ICTD is another department of the City Government located at the 2nd floor of the City Hall just beside the Mayor's office and a floor below the City Veterinary Office. See rollo, p. 4.
22 See petitioner's Comment; CSC Folder, unnumbered pages.
23Rollo, pp. 25-34.
24 See id. at 29-31 and 34. The relevant portions of Section 6 of the CSC Revised Rules on Reassignment (CSC Memorandum Circular No.2, series of 2005 [January 4, 2005]) are as follows:Section 6. Other Personnel Movements. x x x
xxxx
Reassignment shall be governed by the following rules:
xxxx
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. x x x.
xxxx
7. x x x.
Reassignment that constitutes constructive dismissal may be any of the following:
x x x x
(c) reassignment to an existing office but the employee is not given any definite duties and responsibilities;
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
25 See id. at 31-32 and 34.
26 See id. at 32-34.
27 See Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 July 2015) dated September 4, 2015; CA rollo, pp. 102-107.
28 Id. at 37-40.
29 Dated November 16, 2015. Id. at 7-24.
30Rollo, pp. 15-20.
31 Id. at 19-20.
32 See id. at 17.
33 612 Phil. 881 (2009).
34 In Yenko. the Court held that an employee could not have incurred absences in the office where he was re-assigned since his reassignment was void, and as such, his eventual dismissal for non-attendance thereat was declared as invalid. See id. at 897-901. See also rollo, pp. 17-18.
35 See rollo, p. 18.
36 See id. at 18-19.
37 See motion for reconsideration dated March 24, 2017; CA rollo, pp. 157-161.
38Rollo, p. 21.
39 Section 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls.- x x xa. Absence Without Approved Leave40 CSC Resolution No. 1101502, promulgated on November 8, 2011.
1. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He/ She shall, however, be informed of his/her separation not later than five (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing on his/her 201 files or to his/her last known address;
xxxx
41Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology v. Vda. De Bool, 505 Phil. 240, 246 (2005). See also Petilla v. CA, 468 Phil. 395, 408 (2004).
42 See Yenko v. Gungon, supra note 33, at 897-901.
43 In Yenko, it was undisputed that the employee reported at the Municipal Assessor's Office, which was his original workstation, instead of the Public Safety and Order Office, where he was reassigned; see id. at 887-888.
44 In Petilla v. CA, the Court held that the employee's "absence was based on his leave applications, albeit denied, and not on his deliberate refusal to heed the assignment orders."; supra note 41, at 408.
45 See Section 489 of the 1991 Local Government Code for the functions of the city veterinarian.
46 See Bermudez v. Executive Secretary, 370 Phil. 769, 776 (1999), wherein the Court held that an appointment "to a public office is the unequivocal act of designating or selecting by one having the authority therefor of an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust." In this case, respondent failed to show that he was appointed to a position in the ICTD.