“Reassignment of Employees - A Tool of Oppression and Harassment; the PPC Experience”

A Paper Submitted To
Mr. Carmelo Rico S. Bihasa
Professor, Foundation of Public Administration
Graduate School of Management
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Intramuros, Manila

Submitted by
ROGER M. TUMLOS
Foundation of Public Administration
May 26, 2012

I. Introduction:

Reassignment of employees in the government is a common and ordinary thing. It happens in most branches of the government, more particularly in the local government units where politics plays a bigger role. We heard a lot of stories and complaints about the subject, some people simply accepted it as fate, while others challenged it in judicial and/or quasi-judicial tribunals. But, the social and cultural menace it brings in the administration of government organizations and to the parties involved is like a dreaded disease that infects the entire government service. That, in spite of the limitations set forth by law to prevent it, the more it grows like cancer.

The paper wish to share selected cases and notable experiences of employees in the Philippine Postal Corporation hereinafter referred to, as the PPC with the end in view of finding a more suitable and permanent solution to the problem. This is a case where a state policy that ought to protect public officers and employees were used in an abusive manner for personal aggrandizement and satisfaction of whims and caprices of superiors.

It is the author’s desired commitment to impart a fair, balanced and unbiased presentation of facts to the readers with high regard and respect to the basic rights of the employees and officials alike; extending herewith his sympathy and support to the concerned employees for what they have gone through on what seemed to be a nightmare in their government careers.

II. Legal Basis and Leading Jurisprudence

The basis of the policy on reassignment is found in Rule III, Section 6 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998, dated December 14, 1998, which provides:

Section 6. Other Personnel Movements. The following personnel movements which will not require issuance of an appointment shall nevertheless require an office order by duly authorized official.
a. Reassignment – Movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve reduction in rank, status or salary. If reassignment is done without consent of the employee being reassigned it shall be allowed for a maximum period of one year. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service unless proven otherwise or it constitutes constructive dismissal.
No assignment shall be undertaken if done indiscriminately or whimsically because the law is not intended as a convenient shield for the appointing/ disciplining authority to harass or oppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promoting public interest.
Reassignment of small salaried employee is not permissible if it causes significant financial dislocation.

The Supreme Court in the case of Civil Service Commission versus Minerva M.P. Pacheo, GR No. 178021 promulgated on 25 January 2012 declared the following:

“Although reassignment is a management prerogative, the same must be done in the exigency of the service without diminution in rank, status and salary on the part of the officer or employee being temporarily reassigned. Reassignment of ‘small salaried’ employees, however is not allowed if it will cause significant financial dislocation to the employee reassigned.

The primary purpose of emphasizing ‘small salaried employees’ in the foregoing rule is to protect the ‘rank and file’ employees from possible abuse by the management in the guise of transfer/reassignment. The Supreme Court in Alzate v. Mabutas, (51 O.G. 2452) ruled:

‘ x x x [T]he protection against invalid transfer is especially needed by lower ranking employees. The Court emphasized this need when it ruled that officials in the unclassified service, presidential appointees, men in the government set up occupy positions in the higher echelon should be entitled to security of tenure, unquestionable a lesser sol[ci]itude cannot be meant for the little men, that great mass of Common underprivileged employees-thousand there are of them in the lower bracket, who generally are without connections and who pin their hopes of advancement on the merit system instituted by our civil service law.’ In other words, in order to be embraced in the term ‘small-salaried employees’, the latter must belong to the ‘rank and file’; and, his/her salary would be significantly reduced by virtue of the transfer/reassignment. ‘Rank and file’ was categorized as those occupying the position of Division Chief and below, pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 1, series of 1991, dated January 28, 1991.

In this case, records shows that Pacheo belongs to the rank and file receiving an average monthly salary of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) under the salary standardization law and a monthly take home pay of Fourteen Thousand Pesos (₱14,000.00). She has to spend around Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00) a month for her transportation expenses as a consequence of her reassignment, roughly twenty eight percent (28%) of her monthly take home pay. Clearly, Pacheo’s salary shall be significantly reduced as a result of her reassignment.

In the case of IBOT, Nida et al., the Civil Service Commission ruled as follows:
"It is a well-settled rule that in the interest of the public service, temporary reassignment of personnel may be made by the appointing authority. The only condition is that the reassignment should not be used as a device to oust an employee away from the position for which he was appointed. As held in the case of Cruz vs. Navarro, 66 SCRA 79, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:
` There is no question that we recognize the validity and indispensable necessity of the well-established rule that for the good of public service and whenever public interest demands, public officials maybe temporarily assigned or detained to other duties even over his objection without necessarily violating his fundamental and legal rights to security of tenure in the civil service. But as we have already stated, `such cannot be undertaken when the transfer of the employee is with a view to his removal' and `if the transfer is resorted to as a scheme to lure the employee away from his permanent position' because `such attitude is improper as it would in effect result in a circumvention of the prohibition which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the civil service."

III. Reassignment – The PPC Style

The PDM’s Case:

One notable and most sensational case of reassignment in the Philippine Postal Corporation was that involving Mr. Nicolas Alvin Duron. Mr. Duron is appointed as Intelligence Officer IV (SG-22), he was designated as Acting Postal District Manager in National Capital Region, supervising around 17 to 18 post offices. On November 18, 2009, Mr. Duron received a copy of Philpost Personnel Order No. 09-34, signed by former Postmaster General Hector R.R. Villanueva. The order states that “In the exigency of the service, you are hereby directed to report to the Officer-In-Charge, Inspection Service”. However, the order did not specify any designation or duties to perform, thus, placing him in a floating status. This prompted Mr. Duron to file a request for reconsideration for PMG Villanueva to take a second look of the questioned order with a prayer to stay the implementation thereof.

Ten (10) days had lapsed without any reply having been received from the Office of the Postmaster General. This inaction was interpreted by Mr. Duron as an outright denial of his request. He therefore, elevated his case by filing an appeal to the PPC Board of Directors.

In his appeal he cited that while it may be true that, “Reassignment is a management prerogative, which is presumably exercised xxx in the best interest of the service. Hence, unless malice and bad faith are shown and in the absence of any diminution of rank, status and salary on the part of the officer or employee being temporarily reassigned, the Civil Service commission does not interfere with the exercise thereof”. However, the Commission reminds that reassignment of an employee must be done not only in the interest of the service but also in good faith. Thus, the CSC further states that; “To place her(him) in such a situation (floating status) for a long period of time will not serve the best interest of the service”.

Ironically, in a span of six (6) months, Mr. Duron had received a total of six (6) reassignment orders that includes his reassignment to Region 1 and Region 4 which obviously, is more than thirty (30) kilometer radius limit set forth by the CSC. In short, such orders of reassignment are absolutely void as it constitutes financial dislocation.

Mr. Duron was vindicated later because the PPC Board issued a resolution giving no effect to all these reassignment orders.

The Personnel Officer’s Case:

This is one of the most recent incidents in the PPC, but the author thought it wise to withhold the real identity of the subject/s for their own safety and welfare.

The personnel officer is occupying an HRMO V (SG-24) plantilla position discharging duties and function appurtenant to the position. The Head of the agency (PPC) who is a presidential appointee came in bringing a lot of personal staff with her and assigned them to some sensitive positions. Some were given plantilla positions on a co-terminus status, while some were appointed on temporary status. From day one they assumed their respective duties (pending appointments) these new comers (personal staff) had been reminded to submit requirements for the processing of their appointments and salaries.

These things are presumably not new to them knowing that they came from a public office, and settled is the COA rule, that no salary can be drawn without an approved appointment. Now when pay time came, the new comers went out of the Cash Department so disappointed because none of them was able to get his/her salary. To their rescue, the new Head rushed to the Personnel’s Office and in fuming madness, confronted the Personnel Officer, castigated her to the ground in front of the latter’s subordinate. After some verification, it was found out that many of these new comers did not submit their Daily Time Records, some did not have their oath of office and to top it all they did not have an approved appointment yet. In less than a week the Personnel Officer was reassigned to an office, though within the premises but the function that office is entirely irrelevant to her position. Worst, the personnel order did not specify her designation neither the duties that she will perform nor the duration of her reassignment. In short, she was placed in a floating status.

The subject Officer who has a lot of potentials and visions and dreams in life obediently accepted it without a fight with high hopes that everything are just temporary and soon she will be restored to where she rightfully belongs.

IV. Conclusion

Power corrupts power and corrupts more absolutely. On this premise, policies are issued to maintain orderliness in public offices and avoid concentration of too much power on certain individual or group of individuals. Limitations are set forth by law to protect subordinates and low salaried employees from potential abuses of superiors and ranking officials in the government.

However, no matter how noble the intention of certain laws and policies, if it is not strictly monitored and uniformly observed in all public offices, these laws will become nothing but a consolidated pile of garbage, that are useless and practically worthless. We know for a fact that not so many low-salaried employees are well-educated, financially capable and have the courage to defend their principles and rights under the law. All they know is to work, work and work, in order to earn a living for their family. And these employees are the usual victims of abuses by their superiors.

Yes, we have sufficient body of laws that can address almost all kinds of situations, but the government’s approach in the implementation thereof are quite passive and not pro-active, thus rendering these laws almost ineffective. Our laws are just found in textbooks, gazettes, and in other form of writings that are consulted and applied only whenever there is a complaint or query brought to courts or in quasi-judicial tribunals like the Civil Service Commission. However, not a handful decision of the CSC that is not implemented in many government agencies because they lack an effective monitoring system. Thus, some CSC decisions almost ended up as mere decorations. Take for example the case of Romeo Batalla, it was decided by the Civil Service commission in 1997, wherein Batalla was a division chief of Express Mail Service. He was reassigned to a position without dignity simply because his superior does not like him or prefer somebody else to occupy his post. Batalla went to the CSC questioning the propriety of his reassignment order, he got a favorable decision from the CSC wherein the Postmaster General was directed to order his return to his previous assignment. Unfortunately, said decision was never implemented.

We need a pro-active Civil Service Commission to protect rank-and-file employees from all forms of harassment and oppression in the workplace and fulfill their constitutional thrust which is to protect the security of tenure of all government employees.

References:

The New Philippine Constitution, 1987; National Book Store.

The Civil Service Law and Rules, Published by; Personnel Officers Association of the Philippines, Inc. (POAP), Quezon City, 16th printing, March 1999.

Grande, Angelito, G. Regional Director, National Capital Region, Civil Service Commission. Handbook on Personnel Action 2000 Eds. Published by; Central Professional Books, Inc.

Grande, Angelito, G. Regional Director, National Capital Region, Civil Service Commission. Handbook on Investigation of Administrative Disciplinary Cases in the Philippine Civil Service.

Revised Disciplinary Rules and procedures of the Philippine Postal Corporation, October 23, 1997.

Spence, Gerry, How to Argue and Win Everytime, Copyright 1995, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Case Digest of Supreme Court Decisions, February 2008 Vol. 78 No. 2.

The Court Systems Journal, Vol 15, No 1, March 2010

The Lawyers Review, Vol. XXIII, No.5, May 31, 2009

--------------------------------------------
[ 2 ]. CSC Resolution No. 953208 dated May 22, 1995
[ 3 ]. Garcia, et al. vs. Lejano, GR No. L-2220, Aug. 5, 1996
[ 4 ]. CSC Resolution No. 95-3405 dated May 30, 1995
[ 5 ]. CSC Resolution No. 990543