Title
Ejera vs. Merto
Case
G.R. No. 163109
Decision Date
Jan 22, 2014
Employee challenged reassignment, alleging retaliation; court dismissed case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, upholding reassignment as lawful.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 6791)

Petitioner’s Position and Initial Protest

• Petitioner applied for the Supervising Agriculturist post after retirement of incumbent but lost to Daisy Kirit
• Filed and lost a protest before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office (May 24, 2000), with Central Office affirmance on July 25, 2001 (Resolution No. 011253)

Office Orders and Refusal to Comply

• Office Order No. 008 (Sept. 11, 2000): reassigned Agricultural and Fishery Technologists—60% of time at assigned BADC sites, Dumaguete City remained official station
• Office Order No. 005 (June 29, 2001): amended Order No. 008, designating petitioner to Barangays Balanan, Sandulot, Jumalon, Siaton beginning July 2, 2001
• Petitioner refused to obey Orders Nos. 008 and 005, alleging banishment, whimsy, lack of authority, and procedural defects

Administrative Remedies and Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution; Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292, Book V, Title I-A, Chapter 5, Sec. 26: transfer vs. reassignment)
• CSC Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V:
– Transfer: movement with appointment; appealable to CSC
– Reassignment: movement without appointment, no salary/status reduction, presumed valid unless arbitrary or constructive dismissal
• CSC grievance procedure (Rule XII): written complaint, administrative appeal, CSC regional office cognizance of protests and personnel actions

Procedural History in the Regional Trial Court

• Filed complaint for injunction, damages, and TRO on April 16, 2001, challenging legality of office orders and investigation into refusal
• Respondents sought extension to propose amicable settlement; case held in abeyance; respondents declared in default for failure to answer
• Petitioner filed supplemental complaint to implead Paltinca over Order No. 005; Paltinca moved to dismiss for lack of cause and non-exhaustion of remedies
• RTC dismissed entire suit (Oct. 22, 2001), holding:
– Office orders valid as non-disciplinary transfers in interest of public service;
– Complaints by disciplining authority need not be under oath;
– Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies (could have appealed reassignment to CSC or sought relief from appointing authority)

Court of Appeals Decision

• Affirmed RTC (July 23, 2003), ruling:
– Office Orders Nos. 008 and 005 validly issued in public service; not personal banishment;
– Petitioner should have availed of administrative appeal under Omnibus Rules before judicial action;
– RTC’s acting on Paltinca’s motion to dismiss was proper despite no separate order admitting supplemental complaint (no prejudice, implied admission);
– Defaulting respondents could benefit from non-exhaustion defense raised by non-defaulting Paltinca (common cause of action, R. 9, Sec. 3(c), Rules of Civil Procedure)

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional and applicable to reassignment disputes
  2. Whether exceptions to the exhaustion rule apply (pure legal question, urgent judicial intervention, irreparable damage, patently illegal act)
  3. Whether RTC erred in resolving Paltinca’s motion to dismiss before admitting the supplemental complaint
  4. Whether defaulting respondents waived the non-exhaustion defense

Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning

• Use of 1987 Constitution governs (decision in 2014)
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and jurisdicti





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.