GR 146873; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146873 . May 9, 2002.
REMEDIOS PASTOR, petitioner, vs. CITY OF PASIG, MAYOR VICENTE EUSEBIO, THE COURT OF APPEALS, and the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios Pastor was the duly appointed and confirmed Budget Officer of Pasig. In 1992, the newly-elected Mayor Vicente Eusebio issued a memorandum relieving her from her position and reassigning her to the Office of the Municipal Administrator, citing an adverse report and a pending investigation regarding her issuance of Advice of Allotments. For over three years, no formal charges were filed, and no investigation was concluded. In 1995, after requesting reinstatement, she was instead reassigned to conduct studies and later to head the Pasig City Hall Annex, which she contended was a non-department with no real supervisory functions.
ISSUE
Whether the protracted reassignment of petitioner from her position as City Budget Officer constitutes an invalid transfer amounting to a constructive removal from office, in violation of civil service laws and security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals decision, and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure and the statutory rules on personnel actions. While reassignment is generally a management prerogative exercised for the exigency of the service, it must be exercised in good faith and not as a subterfuge to circumvent security of tenure. Here, the reassignment, initially justified by a pending investigation, became indefinite and protracted for over three years without any formal charge. The subsequent reassignments to conduct studies and to a nominal post at an annex were not equivalent to her position as a department head. This prolonged displacement from her permanent position, without a valid administrative case and under the guise of study assignments, effectively stripped her of her substantive functions as Budget Officer. The Court ruled this scheme constituted a constructive removal, as it was a transfer with a view to her removal, luring her away from her permanent post. Such an act violates civil service rules and the constitutional protection against removal without cause.