Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City, Pampanga, Mayor Edgardo D. Pamintuan vs. Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman

A government employee who is given a void reassignment may still be validly dropped from the rolls for AWOL if he neither reported to his original workstation nor filed leave applications during the period he contested the reassignment. The void reassignment excuses non-attendance at the reassigned station, but it does not excuse the employee from reporting to his original post or from filing leave applications for the period of non-report.

Respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman held a permanent position as head of the Office of the City Veterinarian (OCV) of Angeles City, Pampanga, a Department Head position. Petitioner was the Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City, headed by then Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan. The dispute arose within the framework of the CSC Revised Rules on Reassignment, which provide that reassignment constituting constructive dismissal includes reassignment to an existing office where the employee is not given any definite duties and responsibilities, and that reassignment of employees with station-specific place of work shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one year.

Respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman held a permanent position as head of the Office of the City Veterinarian (OCV) of Angeles City, Pampanga. On December 2, 2014, petitioner Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City, headed by then Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan, issued Memorandum No. 33/12, which reassigned respondent to his office and directed him to report to the Mayor's secretary for specific assignments. In a Letter dated December 15, 2014, respondent requested that he be restored to his original post but to no avail. Claiming that his reassignment amounted to constructive dismissal, respondent filed a petition to annul Memorandum No. 33/12 before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

On March 9, 2015, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 17/03 dropping respondent's name from the roll of employees on two grounds: (a) his absence without official leave (AWOL) at the Mayor's office for more than 30 days, specifically from December 4, 2014 to March 9, 2015; and (b) his failure to submit his performance evaluation reports. Moreover, respondent was not given productivity incentive benefits and his name was deleted from the March 1-15, 2015 payroll. Aggrieved, respondent amended his appeal memorandum to include issues regarding the validity of the dropping of his name from the rolls, the non-payment of productivity bonus, and the deletion of his name from the payroll.

Respondent argued that the dropping from the rolls was unwarranted because he did not abandon his work, but was given an invalid reassignment. This notwithstanding, he still reported for work, not at his original post at the OCV but at the Information and Communication Technology Department (ICTD), which he claimed was directly connected to the OCV. Petitioner contended that instead of complying with Memorandum No. 33/12, respondent refused to report to the Mayor's office and opted to log in and out of the ICTD, which was definitely not connected to the OCV. Petitioner further insisted that respondent was validly dropped from the rolls on the two grounds above-mentioned, and that respondent was not entitled to productivity bonus because he failed to submit the requisite evaluation reports.

The CSC ruled that respondent's reassignment was void for two reasons: (i) it amounted to constructive dismissal because he was not given any definite duties and responsibilities; and (ii) the order failed to limit the period of reassignment to one year as required under the CSC Revised Rules on Reassignment. Nevertheless, the CSC found that respondent was validly dropped from the rolls due to AWOL for more than thirty working days and his name was validly deleted from the payroll for March 1-15, 2015, because he failed to present any evidence to prove that he rendered any service for the period from December 4, 2014 to March 9, 2015. The CSC also found no basis for the payment of the 2014 productivity incentive benefits due to respondent's failure to submit any performance evaluation report from July 2010 to December 2014.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the CSC's decision with substantial modifications. It held that respondent's reassignment was void, and as a consequence thereof, he must be reinstated, without qualification, to his former position without loss of seniority rights and must be paid back salaries from the date he was dropped from the rolls on March 9, 2015 until his reinstatement; and his claim for productivity incentive benefit shall be contingent upon the submission of his performance evaluation report and the ratings required under the civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The CA ruled that respondent was invalidly dropped from the rolls because, citing Yenko vs. Gungon, an employee could not have incurred absences in the office where he was assigned since the reassignment thereat was void. Besides, respondent's acts of reporting for duty at the ICTD, which the CA found to be connected to the OCV, as well as repeatedly protesting his reassignment and seeking reinstatement to his former workstation, were inconsistent with any intention to go on AWOL or abandon his post. The CA also held that since respondent continued reporting for work in the ICTD, there was no reason for him not to submit any performance evaluation form, and he was allowed to submit the required form to avail of the productivity incentive benefit.

• Validity of Dropping from the Rolls: Petitioner contended that respondent was validly dropped from the rolls on the grounds of AWOL for more than 30 days and failure to submit performance evaluation reports, because respondent refused to report to the Mayor's office and instead opted to log in and out of the ICTD, which was definitely not connected to the OCV.
• Non-Entitlement to Productivity Bonus: Petitioner insisted that respondent was not entitled to productivity bonus because he failed to submit the requisite evaluation reports.

• Invalidity of Dropping from the Rolls: Respondent argued that the dropping from the rolls was unwarranted because he did not abandon his work, but was given an invalid reassignment, and he still reported for work at the ICTD, which he claimed was directly connected to the OCV.

• Validity of Dropping from the Rolls: Whether respondent was validly dropped from the rolls for being on AWOL for more than thirty (30) days.

• Validity of Dropping from the Rolls: Yes. Respondent was validly dropped from the rolls because, notwithstanding the void reassignment, he neither reported for work at his original post at the OCV nor filed leave applications during the period he was contesting his reassignment to the Office of the Mayor, and his performance of work in the ICTD, an office separate from the OCV, cannot be counted as attendance at work.

• Validity of Dropping from the Rolls: Section 93(a)(1), Rule 19 of the Revised Rules on the Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) provides that a public officer or employee shall be dropped from the rolls if he was on AWOL for at least thirty (30) days. AWOL means that the employee is leaving or abandoning his post without justifiable reason and without notifying his employer. In this case, Memorandum Order No. 17/03 premised respondent's dropping from the rolls on his failure to report for duty at the Mayor's office pursuant to a reassignment order, which was subsequently declared void for amounting to constructive dismissal. Jurisprudence is clear that a government employee could not have incurred absences in his reassigned station if his reassignment thereat was void, as in this case. Thus, respondent could not be validly dropped from the rolls merely for failing to report for work at the Mayor's office.

However, respondent should still be considered on AWOL, and therefore validly dropped from the rolls, because he neither reported for work at his original post at the OCV nor filed leave applications during the period he was contesting his reassignment to the Office of the Mayor. In several cases wherein government employees were given void reassignments to different workstations and thereafter dropped from the rolls for failing to report thereat, the Court did not consider those employees on AWOL because they either reported to their original workstations while contesting their reassignment orders or filed leave applications for the period that they failed to report for work at the reassigned station, even though those applications were later denied or no leave applications were filed for subsequent periods. None of these circumstances were extant in this case.

Instead, respondent, without any proper authority or justifiable reason therefor, chose to report for work at the ICTD, which, contrary to the CA's ruling, is an office separate from the OCV and discharges functions different from the latter. While the ICTD is concerned with information and communications technology, the OCV deals with animal-related activities and policies. To work for a specific public office, it is necessary that the same be by virtue of a valid personnel action made according to the proper procedure. An employee cannot just decide in what office or department he or she will work. Hence, given the lack of authority or justifiable reason, respondent's performance of work in the ICTD cannot be counted as attendance at work. Consequently, he is considered on AWOL for his failure to report for work for more than thirty (30) days, and therefore, correctly dropped from the rolls.

• Doctrine on Void Reassignment and AWOL — A government employee who is given a void reassignment cannot be considered AWOL for failing to report to the reassigned station, but may still be validly dropped from the rolls for AWOL if he neither reported to his original workstation nor filed leave applications during the period he contested the reassignment. The Court applied this doctrine by distinguishing the present case from Yenko vs. Gungon and Petilla vs. CA, where the employees either reported to their original posts or filed leave applications.

• Doctrine on Attendance at Work — To work for a specific public office, it is necessary that the same be by virtue of a valid personnel action made according to the proper procedure. An employee cannot just decide in what office or department he or she will work. The Court applied this principle to hold that respondent's performance of work in the ICTD, an office separate from the OCV, cannot be counted as attendance at work because respondent failed to show that he was appointed to a position in the ICTD.

• "Jurisprudence is clear that a government employee could not have incurred absences in his reassigned station if his reassignment thereat was void, as in this case. Thus, the Court finds that respondent could not be validly dropped from the rolls merely for failing to report for work at the Mayor's office." — This passage states the first half of the Court's reasoning, recognizing the void reassignment doctrine but limiting its application to the reassigned station.

• "This notwithstanding, respondent should still be considered on AWOL, and therefore validly dropped from the rolls because he neither: (a) reported for work at his original post at the OCV; nor (b) filed leave applications during the period he was contesting his reassignment to the Office of the Mayor." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, articulating the controlling rule that distinguishes the present case from prior jurisprudence.

• "Surely, an employee cannot just decide in what office or department he or she will work. Hence, given the lack of authority or justifiable reason, respondent's performance of work in the ICTD cannot be counted as attendance at work." — This passage states the principle that attendance at work must be by virtue of a valid personnel action, and applies it to reject respondent's claim that his reporting to the ICTD constituted attendance.

• Yenko vs. Gungon, 612 Phil. 881 (2009) — Followed and distinguished. The Court followed the doctrine that an employee could not have incurred absences in the office where he was reassigned since his reassignment was void, but distinguished the case because in Yenko, the employee reported at his original workstation while contesting his reassignment, whereas respondent here did not.

• Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology vs. Vda. De Bool, 505 Phil. 240 (2005) — Cited for the definition of AWOL as leaving or abandoning one's post without justifiable reason and without notifying the employer.

• Petilla vs. CA, 468 Phil. 395 (2004) — Followed and distinguished. Cited for the proposition that an employee's absence based on leave applications, albeit denied, is not a deliberate refusal to heed assignment orders; distinguished because respondent here filed no leave applications.

• Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary, 370 Phil. 769 (1999) — Cited for the principle that 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, applied to hold that respondent failed to show he was appointed to a position in the ICTD.

• Section 93(a)(1), Rule 19, Revised Rules on the Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), CSC Resolution No. 1101502 — Provides that 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. The Court applied this provision to uphold respondent's dropping from the rolls.

• Section 6, CSC Revised Rules on Reassignment (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2005) — Provides that reassignment of employees with station-specific place of work shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one year, and that reassignment constituting constructive dismissal may include reassignment to an existing office where the employee is not given any definite duties and responsibilities. This provision was the basis for the CSC's and CA's finding that respondent's reassignment was void.

• Section 489, 1991 Local Government Code — Cited to show the functions of the city veterinarian, which the Court contrasted with the functions of the ICTD to demonstrate that the two offices are separate and discharge different functions.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguia, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ. concurred. J. Reyes, Jr., J. was on leave.