GR 115962; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115962 February 15, 2000
DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dominador Regalado, Jr., as the OIC Mayor of Tanjay, Negros Oriental, issued a memorandum on January 22, 1988, reassigning public health employee Editha Barba from her station at the Poblacion to Barangay Sto. Niño, approximately 25 kilometers away, effective January 25, 1988. This action was taken within the election period for the January 18, 1988 elections, without securing prior approval from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Barba protested the reassignment and filed a complaint for violation of Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s act of reassigning Barba without COMELEC approval constitutes a violation of Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code.
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is guilty of violating Section 261(h). The provision prohibits any transfer or detail of a civil service employee during the election period without prior COMELEC approval. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that his act constituted a mere “reassignment” not a “transfer.” It held that the distinction is immaterial under the election law’s prohibitive scope, which aims to prevent the use of personnel movements for electioneering or harassment. The memorandum’s explicit directive for Barba to perform duties in a new area constituted a movement covered by the ban.
The legal logic is clear: the two elements of the offense are present. First, a public officer effected a personnel movement (reassignment/transfer) within the COMELEC-fixed election period. Second, this was done without the required prior COMELEC approval under implementing Resolution No. 1937. Petitioner’s claim of exigency of service in Barangay Sto. Niño does not excuse non-compliance; the proper recourse was to seek COMELEC approval beforehand. The law’s purpose is to insulate the civil service from political influence during elections. However, the award of moral damages was correctly deleted, as the penalties for election offenses under Section 264 are limited to imprisonment and disqualification from public office and suffrage.