G.R. No. 144493 . April 9, 2002.
CRISTINA JENNY CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID DAOAS (OFFICE OF THE NORTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES), respondent.

FACTS

Cristina Jenny Cariño was appointed Accountant III in the Office of the Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC), Region I. On November 5, 1996, she was reassigned by Executive Director David Daoas to Technical Assistant of the Socio-Economic Division, which she alleged was due to her refusal to sign a disbursement voucher and that the position was non-existent. She filed an administrative complaint against Regional Director Rosalina Bistoyong. On March 14, 1997, Cariño received a memorandum from Bistoyong reassigning her to the ONCC Region II office. On March 18, 1997, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Director rendered a legal opinion that the reassignment was “not in order.” Daoas and Bistoyong appealed this opinion to the Civil Service Commission. Cariño requested deferment of her reassignment and inquired about going on leave, which was denied. On April 14, 1997, Daoas reprimanded Cariño for failing to report to Region II and considered her Absent Without Leave (AWOL) since March 17, 1997. Cariño continued to report for work in Region I until April 29, 1997, when Bistoyong ordered her to refrain from reporting there. Cariño then stopped reporting for work. On April 25, 1997, Daoas issued a Notice/Order of Separation, received by Cariño on May 13, 1997, dropping her from the rolls due to absence without leave for more than thirty days. On September 11, 1997, the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 97-3754 dismissing the appeal of Daoas and Bistoyong and ordering Cariño’s return to Region I. When Cariño reported back, she was informed the resolution was moot due to her being dropped from the rolls. On March 11, 1998, the CSC issued Resolution No. 98-0488 dismissing Cariño’s appeal and affirming her dropping from the rolls. The Court of Appeals denied her petition for review. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner is valid.
2. Whether a reassignment order that is null and void, being violative of the constitutional right to security of tenure, imposes upon the petitioner the obligation to comply with it before it is declared illegal.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the Notice/Order of Separation substantially complied with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, series of 1994.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first and second issues, the Court held that the reassignment of Cariño was not valid as she was appointed to a specific station (Region I) and could not be reassigned to another region without her consent; such unconsented transfer would amount to removal. The Court further ruled that Cariño was justified in not complying with the reassignment order because her refusal was based on the legal opinion of the CSC Regional Office that the reassignment was “not in order,” which opinion carried a presumption of regularity and should be respected pending appeal. Therefore, she could not be considered AWOL for reporting to Region I until ordered to stop. On the third issue, the Court implicitly found the dropping from the rolls invalid as a consequence of the invalid reassignment. The Court directed respondent to reinstate petitioner to her former position or to another position of equivalent rank and compensation, and to pay her back salaries from the time she received the April 29, 1997 memorandum ordering her to refrain from reporting for work in Region I.