G.R. No. 136809 - Plaza II vs. Cassion

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136809)

Background: Devolution and the Memorandum of Agreement

Under Republic Act No. 7160, certain DSWD functions, personnel, assets, liabilities and support systems were devolved to local government units. Pursuant to that statutory devolution and Executive Order No. 503, the City of Butuan, through a MOA entered into by Mayor Plaza and the DSWD, accepted the transfer of DSWD services and personnel to the city. The Sangguniang Panglungsod had earlier passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the MOA.

Reconstitution of the CSSDO and Executive Order No. 06‑92

To implement devolution, Mayor Plaza issued Executive Order No. 06‑92 (October 5, 1992), reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO) and adding 19 devolved national DSWD employees to the city staffing. Petitioner Tuazon, a devolved Social Welfare Officer V, was designated Officer‑in‑Charge of the reconstituted CSSDO. The office’s physical location was changed from the original CSSDO building to the DSWD building.

Respondents’ Reaction and Administrative Charges

The incumbent CSSDO personnel, originally headed by Carolina M. Cassion (Social Welfare Officer IV), refused to recognize Tuazon as their new head and refused to report at the DSWD building. Despite repeated directives from Mayor Plaza to report to the new office and to Tuazon, respondents did not comply. The City Legal Officer conducted an administrative inquiry; respondents submitted explanations and were thereafter charged administratively with grave misconduct and insubordination and preventively suspended for 60 days. Respondents filed a complaint with the Civil Service regional office against Mayor Plaza for alleged violations of Civil Service Law, which was dismissed for lack of merit.

Attempts to Return, CSC Advice, and Dropping from the Rolls

Upon expiration of their preventive suspension respondents communicated willingness to return to work only at their old office location, not at the DSWD building. Mayor Plaza again ordered them to report to the new office. On inquiry to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) regarding appropriate action for continued refusal to report, the CSC (through its Director) advised that respondents could be dropped from the rolls pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993. Acting on that advice, Mayor Plaza issued an order (February 16, 1994) dropping respondents from the rolls for continuing absence without official leave. Respondents appealed to the CSC.

CSC Resolutions Affirming Dropping from the Rolls

The CSC, by Resolution Nos. 94‑4626 and 94‑6243, dismissed the respondents’ appeals and affirmed the Mayor’s dropping order. The CSC reasoned that Memorandum Circular No. 38 classifies officers and employees absent for at least thirty consecutive days without approved leave as AWOL and permits dropping from the service without prior notice; the instrument contemplates that the appointing authority issues the dropping order and submits it to the CSC for record purposes. The CSC further observed that respondents had not reported for work from April 1993 until their dropping; that the Mayor’s Executive Order and designation of Tuazon are presumed valid until annulled by proper authority; and that the proper course was compliance with the Mayor’s directives followed by any legal challenge, otherwise respondents must suffer the consequences. The CSC also found no evidence of a systematic plan to remove the incumbents.

Court of Appeals Decision and Its Reasoning

Respondents sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which, in a February 14, 1996 Decision, set aside the CSC Resolutions and EO No. 06‑92, and reinstated respondents to their former positions without loss of seniority and with full back wages for the period from January 1993 until actual reinstatement. The Court of Appeals grounded its ruling on due process principles, reasoning that separation by dropping from the rolls requires notice and opportunity to be heard. Citing multiple precedents, the appellate court emphasized that ample opportunity to prepare a defense — including assistance to secure legal representation — is part of due process and that deprivation of employment without compliance with notice and hearing requirements is fatal to a separation. The Court also questioned the Mayor’s exercise of authority in issuing EO No. 06‑92, invoking principles of bona fide rule and fundamental standards of fairness.

Issues Presented for Review

The principal issues were: (1) whether Mayor Plaza validly issued EO No. 06‑92 and validly designated petitioner Tuazon as OIC of the reconstituted CSSDO in the exercise of devolution and reorganizational authority under RA 7160 and related implementing rules; and (2) whether respondents were lawfully dropped from the rolls consistent with applicable CSC memoranda and due process requirements.

Supreme Court Rationale Applying the 1987 Constitution and Statutes

Applying the constitutional and statutory framework (1987 Constitution; RA 7160), the Court held that the local chief executive is charged with responsibility for devolved functions and is authorized to reappoint devolved permanent personnel upon transfer and to designate interim heads or duly authorized representatives (Executive Order No. 503; CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19). The Court found that Mayor Plaza acted within his authority in issuing EO No. 06‑92 and in designating Tuazon as OIC, noting that the Sanggunian later confirmed Tuazon’s appointment as Department Head II. The Court rejected the notion that changing the physical location of the office constituted a transfer that impaired respondents’ security of tenure; it treated the relocation as a mere physical move of workplace done in the interest of public service, not a movement from one position to another or an administrative penalty.

On the dropping from the rolls, the Court relied on CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, which treats dropping for AWOL of thirty days as a non‑disciplinary, executory mode of separation permitting dropping without prior notice and subject to appeal to the CSC. Because dropping from the rolls is non‑disciplinary, the Court concluded that prior notice and hearing are not pre

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 136809)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 14, 1996 and its Resolution dated December 9, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 55052 (Carolina M. Cassion, et al. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al.).
Petitioners (Mayor Democrito D. Plaza II and Virginia V. Tuazon) challenge the Court of Appeals’ setting aside of Civil Service Commission (CSC) resolutions that affirmed the dropping from the rolls of the private respondents and the nullification by the Court of Appeals of Executive Order No. 06-92.

Parties and Roles

Petitioners: Democrito D. Plaza II (then Mayor of Butuan City) and Virginia V. Tuazon (designated Officer-in-Charge of the reconstituted City Social Services Development Office, CSSDO).
Private respondents: Carolina M. Cassion (Social Welfare Officer IV and original head of CSSDO) and fifteen other named former DSWD employees (Alberta M. Sampayan, Josephine Natalia U. Lopez, Jocelyn M. Almanzor, Luzviminda G. Ardecer, Magdalena S. Balacuit, Windelyn B. Cabusao, Julieta R. Jandayan, Neri O. Samuya, Ines V. Yaoyao, Teresita I. Rosales, Maria Debra M. Lanaja, Ruth O. Nicolasura, and others).
Other entities referenced: Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), City Government of Butuan (Sangguniang Panglungsod), Civil Service Commission (CSC), Civil Service Regional Office No. X, and the Court of Appeals.

Relevant Legislative and Administrative Framework

Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991): authorizes devolution of personnel, assets and liabilities, records of basic services, and facilities of national government agencies to local government units; aims to transform local government units into self-reliant communities and active partners of the national government.
Executive Order No. 503 (issued by President Corazon C. Aquino): enacted to govern and ensure efficient transfer of responsibilities to local government units upon devolution.
- Section 2(g) (quoted): local chief executive responsible for devolved functions; may delegate powers and functions to a duly authorized representative preferably not lower than a local government department head; must observe principle of command responsibility.
- Section 2(a) (quoted): devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed by local chief executive immediately upon transfer (with reference to deadline June 30, 1992).
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1992:
- Section 22 (quoted): positions absorbed by LGUs from national agencies shall be automatically created upon transfer of corresponding budgetary allocation; devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed by the local chief executive immediately upon transfer; pending completion of new organizational structure, local executives may assign devolved personnel to divisions/sections/units appropriate to their qualifications.
- Also provides that heads of departments appointed by the local chief executive must have the concurrence of the majority of all members of the Sanggunian concerned.
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993:
- Quoted provision on dropping from the rolls: officers and employees absent for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered AWOL and may be dropped from the service without prior notice; a notice or order of dropping shall be issued by the appointing authority and submitted to the CSC office concerned for record purposes.
- MC No. 38 classifies dropping from the rolls as non-disciplinary in nature, executory but appealable to the CSC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order or notice.

Factual Background and Chronology

Prior to RA 7160 implementation, the national government, through DSWD, delivered basic social services.
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Butuan passed SP Resolution 427-92, authorizing Mayor Plaza to sign the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for devolution of DSWD functions to Butuan City.
MOA between the City of Butuan (through Mayor Plaza) and the DSWD provided for transfer of services, personnel, assets and liabilities, and technical support systems to the city counterpart.
Pursuant to the MOA, Mayor Plaza issued Executive Order No. 06-92 dated October 5, 1992:
- Reconstituted the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO).
- Devolved or added thereto nineteen (19) national DSWD employees, headed by petitioner Virginia Tuazon.
- Designated Tuazon as Officer-in-Charge of the reconstituted CSSDO.
- Physically transferred the CSSDO from its original building to the DSWD building.
Original CSSDO composition: private respondents headed by Carolina M. Cassion, Social Welfare Officer IV.
Private respondents refused to recognize Tuazon as head and refused to report for work at the DSWD building, contending EO No. 06-92 and Tuazon’s designation were illegal.
Mayor Plaza issued orders to respondents to report to work at the DSWD building; respondents failed to comply.
January 18, 1993: Mayor Plaza directed the City Legal Officer to conduct an administrative investigation against respondents; respondents submitted explanations and were subsequently charged administratively with grave misconduct and insubordination and were preventively suspended for sixty (60) days.
Respondents filed complaint with Civil Service Regional Office No. X against Mayor Plaza for violation of Civil Service Law; complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
Upon expiration of preventive suspension, respondents informed Mayor Plaza they would return to work but only to their old office, not to the DSWD building; they refused further directives to report to the new office.
April 14, 1993: Mayor Plaza finally notified respondents to report to petitioner Tuazon at the DSWD building; respondents remained obstinate and did not return.
February 9, 1994: Mayor Plaza inquired with the CSC as to appropriate action; CSC (through Atty. Lorea, Director II) advised respondents could be dro