Lesly Bries

2007-03985
The Law On Public Officers and Election Law
Prof. Gisella Dizon Reyes
Assignment: Digests
Republic v. Pacheo
G.R. No. 178021
Jan. 25, 2012
Mendoza, J.
FACTS: Minerva Pacheo was a Revenue Attorney IV, Assistant Chief of the Legal Division of the BIR in RR 7
(Quezon City). The BIR issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 25-2002, ordering the reassignment of
Pacheo as Assistant Chief, Legal Division from RR7 in Quezon City to RR4 in San Fernando, Pampanga.
Pacheo questioned the reassignment through a Letter addressed to Rene Banez, then the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. She considered her transfer as amounting to a constructive dismissal. She complained
that the transfer would mean economic dislocation since she would have to spend 200 on daily travel
expenses (around 4,000 a month). It would also mean physical burden on her part as she would be
compelled to wake up early in the morning for her daily travel from Quezon City to San Fernando,
Pampanga, and to return home late at night from San Fernando to Quezon City. She claimed that her
reassignment was merely intended to harass and force her out of the BIR in the guise of exigencies of the
revenue service. Due to the inaction of the BIR, Pacheo filed a complaint before the CSC- National Capital
Region (CSC-NCR), praying for the nullification of RTAO No. 25-2002. The BIR, through its Deputy
Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group, Edmundo Guevara, denied Pacheos protest for lack of
merit. It contended that her reassignment could not be considered constructive dismissal as she
maintained her position as Revenue Attorney IV and was designated as Assistant Chief of Legal Division.
Pacheo appealed to the CSC, which held that her reassignment is not valid, citing Rule III, Section 6 of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 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 CSC held that the withholding by the BIR of her salaries is justified as she is not entitled thereto since
she is deemed not to have performed any actual work in the government on the principle of no work no
pay. Pacheos MR was denied, so she appealed to the CA, which reversed the CSC decision, stating that
Pacheo was constructively dismissed. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON Pacheo was constructively dismissed and entitled to backwages
HELD: YES, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO FULL BACKWAGES. While a temporary transfer or assignment of
personnel is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is
a preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or when
it is designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such transfer would circumvent
the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service.
Sec. 6, Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998, defines constructive dismissal as a
situation when an employee quits his work because of the agency heads unreasonable, humiliating, or
demeaning actuations which render continued work impossible. The employee is deemed to have been
illegally dismissed. This may occur although there is no diminution or reduction of salary of the employee.
It may be a transfer from one position of dignity to a more servile or menial job.

The CSC contends that Pacheos refusal to report for work either in her original station in Quezon City or
her new place of assignment in San Fernando negates her claim of constructive dismissal. But according to
E.O. 292, Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Sec. 26 (7), there is no such duty to first report to the new
place of assignment prior to questioning an alleged invalid reassignment. Pacheo was within her right not
to report immediately to RR4, and to question her reassignment.
Reassignments involving reduction in rank, status or salary violate the security of tenure 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 unconsented transfers and
reassignments, which are tantamount to illegal/constructive removal. However, it is settled jurisprudence
that an illegally dismissed civil service employee is entitled to back salaries but limited only to a maximum
period of 5 years, and not full back salaries from his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement.
GSIS and Garcia v. KMG
G.R. No. 170132
December 6, 2006
Garcia, J.
FACTS: From Oct. 4 to Oct. 7, 2004, GSIS personnel, including members of respondent Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa GSIS (KMG), which is a public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file employees, staged a 4day concerted demonstration, rallies and en masse walkout in front of the GSIS main office in Roxas
Boulevard, Pasay City. The Mayor of Pasay issued a rally permit, but the absence of the participating GSIS
employees was not covered by a prior approved leave. On Oct. 8, 2004, they returned to work in
obedience to the return-to-work order issued and were made to show cause why they should not be
charged administratively for their participation in said rally.
On Oct. 25, 2004, administrative charges were made against some 110 KMG members for grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Subsequently, KMGs Speaker, Atty.
Molina, had been placed under preventive suspension for 90 days, and additional formal charges against
230 of KMG's members were made. Ignoring the charges, KMG filed a petition for prohibition in the CA on
the ground that its members should not be made to explain why they supported their union's cause, citing
Sec. 10, Civil Service Resolution No. 021316 (Guidelines for Prohibited Mass Action), which exhorts
government agencies to "harness all means within their capacity to accord due regard and attention to
employees grievances and facilitate their speedy and amicable disposition through the use of grievance
machinery or any other modes of settlement sanctioned by law and existing civil service rules." KMG also
pointed out that formal charges will not only deprive its members of the privileges and benefits due them,
but will also disqualify them from promotion, step increment adjustments and receipt of monetary benefits,
including their 13th month pay and Christmas bonuses.
Pending resolution by the CA, the GSIS management proceeded with the investigation resulting in the
exoneration of 20 employees, the reprimand of 182 and the suspension for one month of 5. CA: granted
KMGs petition and perpetually enjoined Garcia and GSIS from implementing the charges. Garcia filed MR
but was denied; hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON GSIS and Garcia should be enjoined from implementing the formal administrative charges
HELD: NO. PETITION GRANTED. Civil service encompasses all branches and agencies of the Government,
including GOCCs with original charters, like the GSIS, or those created by special law. Hence, employees of
covered GOCCs are part of the civil service system and are subject to circulars, rules and regulations
issued by the CSC on discipline, attendance and general terms/conditions of employment, inclusive of
matters involving self-organization, strikes, demonstrations and like concerted actions. In each of the
formal charges, the employee's act of attending, joining, participating and taking part in the strike/rally is a
transgression of the rules on strike in the public sector.
The denounced filing of the administrative charges is prima facie tenable, inasmuch as engaging in mass
actions resulting in work stoppage or service disruption constitutes, in the minimum, the punishable
offense of acting prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The CA equated the right to form
associations with the right to engage in strike and similar activities available to workers in the private
sector. However, this is contrary to Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 5 of CSC Resolution No. 021316. It may be that
the freedom of expression and assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of

grievances stand on a level higher than economic and other liberties. However these rights do not include
the right on the part of government personnel to strike.
The SC cited Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, where it held that it
would be unfair to allow employees of government corporations to resort to concerted activity with the
ever present threat of a strike to wring benefits from Government. It also cited Bangalisan v. CA, where it
held that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions
or associations, without including the right to strike. In Gesite v. Court of Appeals, the SC defined the limits
of the right of government employees to organize:
It is relevant to state at this point that the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that employees in the public
service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of mass action that will lead in
the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. The right of government employees to organize is
limited to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the right to strike.
The record of attendance for the period material shows that there was work disruption or that the delivery
of services did not remain at the usual level of efficiency at the GSIS main office during those 4 days. On
the first day of the protest, 851 employees, or 48% of the 1,756 employees in the main office took to the
streets during office hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. On the second day, 707 employees left their respective
work stations. 538 participated in the mass action on the 3rd day. 306 employees joined the 4th day. Any
collective activity undertaken by government employees with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
service disruption in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise, is a
prohibited concerted mass action and doubtless actionable administratively. The filing of charges against
a large number of persons and/or the likelihood that they will be suspended or, worse, dismissed from the
service for the offense do not indicate a strong case of grave abuse of authority to justify the issuance of a
writ of prohibition.
CSC Memorandum Circular 21, Series of 2002 Outline:
Policies and Guidelines For Detail of Employees
Definition
Detail temporary movement of an employee from one department or agency to another which does not
involve a diminution in rank, salary, or status. It will not require issuance of an appointmentonly an office
order issued by the appointing authority. Said detailed employee will receive his/her salary from his/her
mother agency or unit. (Sec. 1)
Duration
Detail should only be allowed for a maximum period of one year, but it can be extended past that with the
consent of the detailed employee. Extension/renewal shall be within the authority of the mother agency. If
the employee believes that there is no justification for the detail, he/she may appeal to the proper CSC
Regional Office, but pending appeal, the detail is executoryunless otherwise ordered by the regional
office. Said decision can be further appealed to the CSC en banc. (Sec. 2)
Authority Over Detailed Employee
The mother agency or unit relinquishes administrative supervision over the detailed employee to the
receiving agency for the duration of the detail.
Administrative supervision authority to direct performance of duties, restrain the commission of acts;
review, approve, modify, reverse acts or decisions of detailed employee; includes authority to monitor
attendance and punctuality, evaluate performance, grant requests for leave or authority to travel and
exercise other acts necessary to effectively supervise the employee (Sec. 3)
Re: Personnel Actions
With respect to those personnel actions such as promotion and transfer which dont necessarily require the
issuance of an appointment (ex: salary adjustment), these actions shall be under the jurisdiction of the
mother agency or unit. (Sec. 4)

Authority To Discipline Detailed Employees

Authority to discipline is still vested in the mother agency or unitthis includes the authority to conduct a
formal investigation against the employee, issuance of a formal charge, determination of a prima facie
case against him/her, and rendering a decision on the administrative case, among others. If the case arose
from acts committed by the employee in the receiving agency, said agency can file or initiate a complaint
against him/her, compliant with CSC Resolution 99-1936. (Sec. 5)