This Supreme Court decision affirms that employees holding station-specific appointments are protected from indefinite reassignments. The Court ruled that reassigning Venusto Hamoy, Jr. beyond one year from his original station as Vice-President for VisMin Operations & Maintenance violated his security of tenure. This decision clarifies the scope and limitations of managerial prerogative in reassigning employees, safeguarding the rights of those with specific workplace designations.

Does “Vice President” Always Mean “Third Level”? When Reassignments Violate Security of Tenure

The National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) sought to challenge a Court of Appeals ruling that favored its employee, Venusto D. Hamoy, Jr. Hamoy had been reassigned from his original post as Vice President for VisMin Operations & Maintenance, a move he contested as a violation of his right to security of tenure. The core legal question revolved around the nature of Hamoy’s position (whether it was a second or third-level position within the civil service) and the validity of his reassignment under prevailing civil service rules and regulations.

TransCo argued that Hamoy’s position was a third-level one, falling under the Career Executive Service (CES), which would grant the company broader latitude in reassigning him. However, the Court emphasized that third-level positions are those specifically within the Career Executive Service and require presidential appointment. Since Hamoy was appointed by TransCo’s President and CEO, and not by the President of the Philippines, his position remained at the second level. This distinction is critical because it dictates the permissible duration and scope of reassignments.

The Administrative Code categorizes positions in the career service into three levels. The first level includes clerical, trades, crafts, and custodial positions. The second encompasses professional, technical, and scientific roles, extending up to Division Chief levels. Lastly, the third level encompasses positions within the Career Executive Service. Importantly, positions in the CES are those held by Undersecretaries, Bureau Directors, and other officers of equivalent rank, all of whom are appointed by the President. As the Supreme Court has previously held in *Office of the Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission*, the CES covers presidential appointees only.

The debate over whether Hamoy’s position was station-specific further complicated the issue. TransCo argued that since Hamoy’s appointment paper lacked a specific work station, he could be freely reassigned. However, the Court looked beyond the appointment paper, Form No. 33, and considered the Board Resolution (TC 2003-007) referenced in the appointment. This resolution explicitly linked Hamoy’s position to “Item No. 700010-VisMin Operations & Maintenance,” making his appointment station-specific.

The Revised Rules on Reassignment state that employees with station-specific appointments can only be reassigned for a maximum period of one year. A reassignment involves moving an employee from one organizational unit to another within the same department or agency, without a reduction in rank, status, or salary. Hamoy’s initial movement from VisMin Operations & Management to the Office of the President and CEO qualified as a reassignment. Therefore, it should not have exceeded one year, or February 16, 2005. The subsequent designations extending his stay and assigning him as OIC of the PSRG further violated these rules. These reassignments were also problematic because they occurred without Hamoy’s consent and despite his expressed objections, indicative of a disregard for his rights and security of tenure.

Detail	Movement from one agency to another.
Reassignment	Movement from one organizational unit to another in the same agency; cannot exceed one year for station-specific appointments.

Constructive dismissal arises when an employee’s reassignment results in a demotion in rank or a situation that is prejudicial to him. This could involve reassignment to perform duties inconsistent with the position, reassignment to an office outside the existing organizational structure, reassignment without definite duties, significant financial dislocation due to geographical location, or reassignment done indiscriminately to harass or oppress the subordinate. Though Hamoy’s rank and salary remained the same, the financial burden of maintaining a separate residence in Cebu, coupled with the extended reassignment, pointed to a potential case of constructive dismissal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the reassignment of Venusto D. Hamoy, Jr. violated his right to security of tenure as a government employee.
What is a station-specific appointment?	A station-specific appointment is when the specific office or station where the position is located is explicitly stated on the appointment paper, restricting reassignment options.
What is the Career Executive Service (CES)?	The CES consists of high-level government positions such as Undersecretaries and Bureau Directors, all appointed by the President of the Philippines.
How long can an employee with a station-specific appointment be reassigned?	Under civil service rules, an employee with a station-specific appointment can only be reassigned for a maximum of one year.
What is the difference between a reassignment and a detail?	A reassignment is a movement within the same agency, while a detail is a movement from one agency to another.
What happens if a reassignment is longer than allowed?	If a reassignment exceeds the allowable period, it can be considered a violation of the employee’s security of tenure and potentially a form of constructive dismissal.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal happens when the working conditions are rendered difficult so as to force an employee to resign from work. This could involve reassignment to a position lower than one’s current post.
What factors did the Court consider in determining if the reassignment was valid?	The Court considered whether the position was station-specific, the duration of the reassignment, the employee’s consent, and whether the reassignment resulted in a demotion or financial hardship.

This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to civil service rules in personnel movements and safeguards employees against arbitrary reassignments. By emphasizing the limitations on reassignments for those with station-specific appointments, the Supreme Court reaffirms the commitment to protecting security of tenure in the public sector.

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: National Transmission Corporation v. Hamoy, G.R. No. 179255, April 2, 2009