The Supreme Court affirmed the authority of local government units to manage devolved personnel, emphasizing that reassigning employees to new offices within the local government’s scope is a valid exercise of administrative power, not a violation of security of tenure. This decision underscores the principle that local chief executives can implement organizational changes necessary for efficient public service delivery, even if it requires employees to report to a different physical location.

Butuan City Showdown: Can a Mayor Reorganize and Reassign City Employees?

This case originated from a dispute in Butuan City following the devolution of services from the national Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to the city government. After the City Mayor issued an executive order reassigning employees to a new office location, some employees refused to comply, leading to administrative charges and eventual dismissal. The central legal question was whether the Mayor had the authority to issue such an order and whether the employees’ refusal to comply constituted insubordination justifying their removal from service. The case highlights the delicate balance between administrative efficiency, employee rights, and the implementation of the Local Government Code.

The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) aims to empower local government units (LGUs) by devolving certain functions and responsibilities from the national government. This devolution includes the transfer of personnel, assets, and liabilities to the LGUs, enabling them to deliver basic social services more effectively. In this case, the City of Butuan, through its then Mayor Democrito Plaza II, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DSWD to transfer the latter’s services, personnel, assets, and liabilities to the city. Following this MOA, Mayor Plaza issued Executive Order (EO) No. 06-92, reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO) and reassigning national DSWD employees to the new office location.

However, some employees of the CSSDO refused to recognize the reassignment and report to the new office, arguing that the Mayor’s EO was illegal. This refusal led to administrative charges of grave misconduct and insubordination, culminating in their being dropped from the rolls. The employees then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially upheld the Mayor’s decision. The CSC cited Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, which allows for the dropping from the rolls of employees absent without approved leave for at least 30 days. The CSC found that the employees’ refusal to report to the new office constituted such absence.

The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s decision, finding that the employees had been denied due process and that the EO was invalid because it was issued without prior approval from the Sanggunian (City Council). The appellate court emphasized the importance of notice and opportunity to be heard in administrative proceedings, arguing that these requirements are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be validly effected. The Court of Appeals also questioned the validity of EO No. 06-92, stating that adherence to basic rules and standards of fairness cannot be disregarded.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It emphasized that Section 17 of the Local Government Code empowers local chief executives to implement the devolution process. The Court highlighted that the Mayor was authorized to issue EO No. 06-92 to give effect to the devolution decreed by the Local Government Code. As the local chief executive of Butuan City, Mayor Plaza had the authority to reappoint devolved personnel and designate an employee to take charge of a department until the appointment of a regular head.

Moreover, the Supreme Court clarified that the change of the employees’ place of work did not constitute a transfer, which would require their consent. According to prevailing jurisprudence, a transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in service and may be imposed as an administrative penalty. Rather, it was a physical transfer of their office to a new one done in the interest of public service. There were no new movements or appointments from one position to another.

The Court also addressed the due process argument, explaining that the dropping from the rolls of the employees was not disciplinary in nature. Therefore, they need not be notified or be heard. The Court cited CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, which provides that officers and employees who are absent for at least 30 days without approved leave may be dropped from the service without prior notice.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the authority of local government units to manage their personnel effectively and implement organizational changes necessary for efficient public service. The ruling underscores that employees cannot obstruct legitimate exercises of administrative power by refusing to comply with valid directives. The Court, in essence, balanced the interest of efficient governance with the rights of the employees.

This case clarifies the scope of authority of local chief executives in implementing the Local Government Code, particularly in the context of devolution. It also provides guidance on the procedures for dropping employees from the rolls for prolonged unauthorized absences. The decision serves as a reminder that while employees have rights, they also have a corresponding duty to comply with lawful orders and directives from their superiors.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a local government unit could reassign employees to a new office location as part of the devolution process and whether the employees’ refusal to comply justified their being dropped from the rolls.
What is devolution under the Local Government Code?	Devolution is the act by which the national government confers power and authority upon local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities, including the transfer of personnel, assets, and liabilities.
Was the Mayor authorized to issue the executive order?	Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Mayor was authorized to issue the executive order to implement the devolution process and manage personnel within the local government unit.
Did the reassignment violate the employees’ security of tenure?	No, the Court clarified that the reassignment was not a transfer but merely a physical relocation of the office in the interest of public service, which did not violate the employees’ security of tenure.
Were the employees entitled to a hearing before being dropped from the rolls?	No, the Court ruled that dropping from the rolls for prolonged unauthorized absences is not disciplinary in nature, and therefore, employees are not entitled to a prior hearing.
What is the significance of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993?	This circular allows for the dropping from the rolls of employees who are absent without approved leave for at least 30 days, which was the basis for the employees’ dismissal in this case.
What was the ruling of the Court of Appeals?	The Court of Appeals initially reversed the CSC’s decision, but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the CSC’s decision.
What is the practical implication of this case?	This case affirms the authority of local government units to manage their personnel effectively and implement organizational changes necessary for efficient public service delivery.

In conclusion, this case emphasizes the importance of upholding the authority of local government units to manage devolved personnel and implement organizational changes necessary for efficient public service delivery. The decision serves as a reminder of the balance between administrative efficiency and employee rights in the context of local governance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Plaza II vs. Cassion, G.R. No. 136809, July 27, 2004