GR 136809; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136809; July 27, 2004
DEMOCRITO D. PLAZA II and VIRGINIA V. TUAZON, petitioners, vs. CAROLINA M. CASSION, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Pursuant to the devolution under the Local Government Code, the City of Butuan entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Mayor Democrito Plaza II issued Executive Order No. 06-92 reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO), devolving 19 national DSWD employees thereto and designating Virginia Tuazon as Officer-in-Charge. The office was physically relocated to the DSWD building. The original CSSDO employees, headed by respondent Carolina Cassion, refused to recognize Tuazon’s authority and to report to the new office location, insisting on working at their old office. Despite repeated directives from Mayor Plaza, they remained obstinate.
Following an administrative charge and a preventive suspension, respondents, upon suspension expiry, expressed willingness to return to work but only at their old office. For their continued absence, Mayor Plaza, upon CSC advice, issued an Order dropping them from the rolls under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, s. 1993, for being absent without leave for at least thirty days. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the order. The Court of Appeals reversed, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the CSC and ruling that the dropping of respondents from the rolls was invalid.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the CSC resolutions and affirmed the validity of dropping respondents from the rolls. The legal logic is twofold. First, the physical transfer of the CSSDO office to the DSWD building was a legitimate administrative act in the interest of public service following devolution. It did not constitute a transfer of employees requiring consent, as there was no change in their positions, ranks, or salaries. The Executive Order and Tuazon’s designation were presumed valid; the proper recourse for respondents was to comply first and challenge the order subsequently, not to defy it.
Second, dropping from the rolls under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38 is a non-disciplinary action applicable to employees absent without approved leave for at least thirty days. Being non-disciplinary, prior notice and hearing are not required as elements of due process. Respondents’ prolonged and unjustified refusal to report to their assigned workplace constituted absence without official leave, validly warranting their separation from the service through dropping from the rolls by the appointing authority. Their defiance of lawful orders, based on an untenable objection to the office relocation, justified the administrative action taken against them.