G.R. No. 185215. July 5, 2010.
VIRGINIA D. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virginia D. Bautista began her career at the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 1978. Following a reorganization authorized by Executive Order No. 81, she was appointed in January 1987 as an Account Officer with Salary Grade (SG) 20. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 6758 (the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989), DBP was mandated to adopt uniform position titles. Consequently, on February 15, 1991, petitioner was permanently appointed as a Bank Executive Officer II (BEO II) with SG 24, retroactive to July 1, 1989. Prior to this appointment, her position as Account Officer was at SG 20, step 24, with an annual salary of ₱102,000. Her new appointment as BEO II was at SG 24, step 8, with a higher annual salary of ₱131,250.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner’s appointment to the position of Bank Executive Officer II (BEO II) constituted an illegal demotion.

RULING

No, the appointment did not constitute a demotion. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals. Demotion involves a movement from one position to another resulting in a diminution in duties, responsibilities, status, or rank, which may or may not involve a reduction in salary. In this case, the appointment was made pursuant to a valid reorganization to align DBP’s plantilla with the standardized Government Financial Institutions’ Index of Occupational Services as required by law. The Court found that the duties and responsibilities of the positions of Account Officer (SG 20) and BEO II (SG 24) were substantially the same, as evidenced by petitioner’s own Position Description Form. Critically, there was no diminution in rank or salary; on the contrary, her salary grade was increased from 20 to 24, and her annual salary was raised. An appointment to a position with the same core duties but with a higher rank and salary negates any claim of demotion. The Court emphasized that the reorganization was undertaken in good faith to comply with statutory mandates, not to improperly diminish petitioner’s employment status.