G.R. No. 234630, June 10, 2019
OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR OF ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, MAYOR EDGARDO D. PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, vs. DR. JOSEFINO E. VILLAROMAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman held a permanent position as the head of the Office of the City Veterinarian (OCV) of Angeles City. On December 2, 2014, petitioner, through then Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan, issued Memorandum No. 33/12, reassigning respondent to the Mayor’s office and directing him to report to the Mayor’s secretary for specific assignments. Respondent protested this reassignment via a letter dated December 15, 2014, requesting restoration to his original post, but his request was unheeded. Consequently, respondent filed a petition before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to annul the memorandum, claiming it amounted to constructive dismissal.
Subsequently, on March 9, 2015, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 17/03, dropping respondent’s name from the roll of employees on the grounds of: (a) being absent without official leave (AWOL) for more than 30 days (from December 4, 2014, to March 9, 2015) for failing to report to the Mayor’s office as directed; and (b) failure to submit performance evaluation reports. Respondent’s name was also deleted from the payroll, and he was denied productivity incentive benefits. Respondent amended his CSC appeal to challenge the validity of his dropping from the rolls, arguing he did not abandon his work but was given an invalid reassignment. He contended that he continued to report for work, not at the Mayor’s office, but at the Information and Communication Technology Department (ICTD), which he claimed was connected to the OCV. Petitioner countered that respondent’s reassignment was valid and that his refusal to report to the assigned office and his logging in at the unrelated ICTD justified the dropping from the rolls and the denial of benefits.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent was validly dropped from the rolls on the ground of being absent without official leave (AWOL).

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the Court of Appeals. It held that respondent was validly dropped from the rolls for going on AWOL.
The Ratio Decidendi is as follows:
1. A void reassignment order does not automatically excuse an employee from the duty to obey it or report to the assigned post while it is being contested. The Court distinguished this case from Yenko v. Gungon, cited by the CA. In Yenko, the employee reported to his original, substantive workstation. Here, respondent did not report to his original post at the OCV but to a completely different office, the ICTD. Reporting to an unauthorized location is not equivalent to reporting for duty. An employee challenging a reassignment must still comply with the order under protest or seek appropriate interim relief; outright refusal to report constitutes insubordination.
2. The act of reporting to an office where one is not assigned, and which is functionally unrelated to one’s position, does not constitute rendering service and is inconsistent with a claim of non-abandonment. Respondent’s position as City Veterinarian is station-specific, with duties defined by law. The ICTD, which deals with information technology, is not connected to the functions of a veterinarian. By choosing to report there, respondent effectively absented himself from his lawful place of work. His actions demonstrated a willful disregard of the lawful reassignment order, which constitutes AWOL.
3. The grounds for dropping from the rolls under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service are clear: continuous absence without official leave for at least 30 working days warrants separation. Respondent’s failure to report to the Mayor’s office from December 4, 2014, to March 9, 2015, which exceeded 30 days, squarely fell under this rule. His subjective belief in the invalidity of the reassignment did not justify his absence from his assigned post during the pendency of his appeal.
Therefore, the dropping of respondent’s name from the rolls was valid and in accordance with civil service rules on AWOL.

DOCTRINES

1. Doctrine on Obedience to Orders Under Protest: A public officer must comply with a reassignment order even if believed to be invalid, while simultaneously pursuing administrative or judicial remedies for its nullification. Non-compliance based on a unilateral determination of invalidity constitutes insubordination and may justify administrative action, including being declared on AWOL.
2. Elements of Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL): AWOL exists when an employee leaves or abandons his post without justifiable reason and without notifying his employer. Reporting to an office where one is not officially assigned, especially if functionally unrelated to one’s position, does not negate AWOL from the lawful place of assignment.
3. Constructive Dismissal in Reassignment: A reassignment may amount to constructive dismissal if, among others, it is made without a definite period (exceeding the one-year limit for station-specific positions) or if the employee is not given any definite duties and responsibilities in the new assignment. However, the void nature of a reassignment is a separate issue from the employee’s obligation to follow the order while it is being contested.
4. Dropping from the Rolls for AWOL: Under Section 93(a)(1), Rule 19 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, an officer or employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls. This is an administrative action that does not require prior notice or a formal hearing, as it is based on a factual condition of absence.