G.R. No. 165450 and G.R. No. 165452, August 13, 2009
FRANCIS F. YENKO, as Administrator & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, both of the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Petitioners, vs. RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, Respondent. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Raul Nestor C. Gungon was a permanent Local Assessment Operations Officer III in the San Juan Assessor’s Office. On January 7, 1998, Municipal Administrator Francisco Yenko reassigned him to the Public Order and Safety Office (POSO) citing exigency of service. Upon reporting, the POSO officer-in-charge assigned Gungon as a Duty Agent with a graveyard shift (12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.), tasked with security and apprehension duties. Gungon protested this reassignment in writing, arguing it constituted an illegal demotion as it involved a reduction in rank, status, and salary, and violated his security of tenure. He subsequently reported back to his original office in the Assessor’s Office but was not given work.
Despite his protests and continued reporting to his original office, Gungon was served a memorandum on February 13, 1998, charging him with failure to report to his new assignment. In his reply, he reiterated the illegality of the reassignment and explained his refusal to report to the POSO was due to the dangerous and inappropriate nature of the duties assigned. Consequently, on February 23, 1998, Mayor Jinggoy Estrada dropped Gungon from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL) starting January 22, 1998.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Gungon’s reassignment was valid and whether his subsequent dropping from the rolls for AWOL was justified.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gungon, declaring the reassignment invalid and the dropping from the rolls unlawful. The legal logic hinges on the nature of a valid reassignment under the Administrative Code. A reassignment must not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. The Court found that transferring Gungon from a technical assessment position to perform security guard duties with a graveyard shift effectively diminished his status and was a disguised demotion. The claim of “exigency of the service” was unsubstantiated and could not justify an action that circumvented civil service rules on security of tenure.
Consequently, Gungon’s refusal to comply with the illegal order was justified. An employee cannot be penalized for failing to obey an unlawful directive. Therefore, his absence from the POSO could not be considered AWOL, as he was rightfully asserting his rights and reporting to his lawful station. The dropping from the rolls, based on this invalid premise, was itself invalid. The Court affirmed the appellate decision’s directive to reinstate Gungon to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with payment of back salaries, subject to the rule limiting such payment to a maximum of five years. The ruling reinforces the principle that reassignments must be made in good faith and cannot be used to harass, demote, or undermine the security of tenure of civil servants.