PLAZA II v. CASSION, 435 SCRA 294 (Digested Case)

PLAZA II v. CASSION

Re: Devolution (Sec. 17 & 24, LGC 1991)

FACTS: Upon the implementation of the LGC, some functions of agencies, like that of the DSWD, were devolved to LGUs. The City Council of Butuan passed a resolution authorizing its mayor to sign an MOA for the devolution of the DSWD to the city. Pursuant to said MOA, the services, personnel. assets and liabilities and technical support systems of DSWD were transferred to its city counterpart. By virtue of the same MOA, the mayor issued an EO, reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO), devolving or adding thereto 19 national DSWD employees headed by petitioner Virginia Tuazon who was also designated as OIC of CSSDO. The CSSDO was originally composed of herein respondents, headed by Carolina M. Cassion. Aggrieved by such development, they refused to recognize petitioner Tuazon as their new head and to report at the DSWD building. They contended that the issuance of the reconstituting EOby Mayor Plaza and the designation of petitioner Tuazon as Officer-in-charge of the CSSDO are illegal. Despite Mayor Plazas series of orders to respondents to report for work at the DSWD building, they failed to do so. Because of this, Mayor Plaza issued an order dropping respondents from the rolls pursuant to the CSC Memorandum Circular.

ISSUES:

(1) WON the dropping of respondents from the roll is legal.

(2) WON respondents were denied due process for lack of notice and hearing.

(3) WON  the contention of respondents that it was really the intention of the mayor to systematically remove them was meritorious.

(4) WON the EO was valid.

(5) WON respondents' right to security of tenure has been violated as they were transferred without their consent.

HELD:

(1) Yes. The CSC Memorandum Circular provides that, "officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) and may be dropped from the service without prior notice."

(2)  No. The separation of an employee who is dropped from the rolls is a non-disciplinary action wherein the respondent is entitled to notice and hearing. In the above-quoted provision, an officer or employee may be dropped from the rolls if he was continuously absent without official leave for a period of at least thirty days. Prior notice is not necessary.

(3) No. No evidence was submitted by the appellants to support such contention.

(4) Yes. Section 17 of the Local Government Code authorizes the devolution of personnel, assets and liabilities, records of basic services, and facilities of a national government agency to local government units. Under this Code, the term devolution refers to the act by which the national government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities. Furthemore,  devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed by the local chief executive concerned immediately upon their transfer. It is thus clear that Mayor Plaza is empowered to issue the EO in order to give effect to the devolution decreed by the LGC. As the local chief executive, Mayor Plaza has the authority to reappoint devolved personnel and may designate an employee to take charge of a department until the appointment of a regular head, as was done by the Mayor here. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1992, provides further that heads of departments appointed by the local chief executive must have the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Sanggunian concerned. While initially, the Sanggunian rejected petitioner Tuazons appointment as the City Government Department Head II of the CSSDO, however, it later confirmed her appointment.

(5) No. There was no such transfer. Transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in service and may be imposed as an administrative penalty. The change of respondents place of work from the original CSSDO office to the DSWD building is not a transfer. It was only a physical transfer of their office to a new one done in the interest of public service. There were no new movements or appointments from one position to another.