THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199382. April 23, 2014.]
LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION, petitioner, vs. ALICE MARIE C. OSORIO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, which reads as follows: IcCEDA
"G.R. No. 199382 (Local Water Utilities Administration v. Alice Marie C. Osorio). — On April 20, 2004 the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) dismissed from the service Attorneys Rodolfo de Jesus and Edelwina dG. Parungao, the Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services and the Department Manager of Human Resources Management Department, respectively, of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Both challenged their dismissal before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 84902. Meanwhile, LWUA Administrator Lorenzo H. Jamora issued Office Order 152.04 implementing the OMB Resolution.
Further, on August 27, 2004 Administrator Jamora issued Office Order 176.04 designating Lilia N. Asprer as Acting Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services. But on August 31, 2004 respondent Alice Marie C. Osorio objected to the designation on the ground that it violated a valid and subsisting temporary restraining order that the CA issued on August 12, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP 84902.
On the same day, Administrator Jamora issued Office Order 181.04 reassigning respondent Osorio to LWUA's Legal Department in the exigency of service and to enhance that department. On September 8, 2004 Osorio sought reconsideration of the office order on the ground that her reassignment violated the rule on non-reduction in rank and status. She further alleged that she had been reassigned because she objected to Asprer's designation as Acting Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services.
As a result of respondent Osorio's refusal to comply with Office Order 181.04, Administrator Jamora wrote her on December 13, 2004 giving her five days from receipt within which to comply with the subject Office Order or her name would be dropped from the rolls of LWUA personnel. Again, Osorio sought reconsideration of this last letter. She explained that Jamora's order violated existing laws and Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules because it failed to state the position, duties, responsibilities, and the duration of her reassignment.
On January 13, 2005 Administrator Jamora issued Office Order 009.05 dropping respondent Osorio from the rolls of personnel in view of her failure to report to her new place of assignment. On February 3, 2005 Osorio filed a Brief with the office of Administrator Jamora stating that on the strength of the CA's Resolutions dated January 4, 2005 and January 24, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP 84902, which restored the status quo ante by reinstating Atty. De Jesus including his right to use the services of his immediate support staff, Osorio reported for work and assumed her position as Technical Assistant A from that date.
But Administrator Jamora contended that respondent Osorio was never a party to CA-G.R. SP 84902. Consequently, she had no right to claim that she was covered by the CA Resolution she cited and, therefore, she cannot reassume her duties and responsibilities as Technical Assistant A. On January 5, 2005 he denied her request for reconsideration of the letter dated December 13, 2004 as well as her request for reconsideration of Office Order 009.05, prompting her to appeal to the CSC-NCR questioning Office Order 009.05 that dropped her from the rolls due to absences without official leave. EcAISC
On August 2, 2005 the CSC-NCR affirmed respondent's dropping from the rolls for failure to report for work at her new assignment. The CSC-NCR ruled that the reassignment of respondent Osorio was valid as it was issued in the best interest of the service. Aggrieved, respondent filed an Appeal to the CSC. On April 13, 2009 the CSC affirmed the Decision of the CSC-NCR.
Undaunted, respondent filed a petition for review with the CA seeking to reverse the CSC Resolution of April 13, 2009. On August 11, 2011 the CA reversed and set aside the CSC Resolution on the ground that the reassignment of respondent Osorio violated the rule that a reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank or status. The CA moreover found that the challenged Office Order contained no definite date or duration as well as respondent Osorio's position, duties, and responsibilities in the Legal Department where she had been reassigned. Petitioner LWUA filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it in its November 17, 2011 Resolution, hence, this petition.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in declaring invalid respondent Osorio's reassignment to the Legal Department of LWUA.
Section 10, Rule 7 of the Omnibus Rules implementing Book 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that reassignment is a movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. This is echoed in Section 24 (g) of Presidential Decree 807.
Here, it is undisputed that the highest vacant rank-and-file position for a non-lawyer in the Legal Department was that of Supervising Research Analyst with salary grade 16, 1 lower than respondent Osorio's previous assignment as Technical Assistant A with salary grade 22. Furthermore, respondent Osorio has, as Technical Assistant A, administrative supervision over staffs assigned under the Office of the Deputy Administrator. 2
Clearly, respondent Osorio's reassignment to the Legal Department to perform the functions of a Supervising Research Analyst who has a lower salary grade and has no supervisory functions violated the rule against reduction in rank and status. Such a reassignment violates the 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 amount to illegal constructive removal. 3
Moreover, the records will likewise show that respondent Osorio's reassignment was made in bad faith. Administrator Jamora reassigned her on the same day she registered her objection to his designation of Asprer as LWUA Acting Deputy Administrator. No reassignment can be undertaken if done whimsically since the law is not intended as a convenient shield for the appointing or disciplining authority to harass or suppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promoting public interest.
WHEREFORE, the Count DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated November 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 108851.
SO ORDERED." ADSTCa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 256.
2. Id. at 382.
3. Yenko v. Gungon, G.R. Nos. 165450 & 165452, August 13, 2009, 595 SCRA 562, 577.