G.R. No. 80455-56 April 10, 1989 CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and ANGELA P. JORDAN, petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BASILAO E. BORJA, respondents.
funa vs. cscFull description
Digested cases for Admin LawFull description
digestFull description
hmFull description
hm
hm
admin digestFull description
mechanical departmentFull description
Resumen del Búho de Minerva
filosofíaDescripción completa
Canadian Securities Course Notes
Acerca de Minerva
análisis de microempresa, cervecería minervaDescripción completa
Descripción completa
Case DigestsFull description
Im not the owner, just want to share it. All credits to the Author. thank youFull description
digest of Sinon v. CSC case for Public Officers
Documentul PDF pus de Sturza Iuliu Cezar transformat în xls, cu numerele volumelor pus epe o coloană separată. Sper să vă fie de folos :)Full description
G.R. No. 178021
January 25, 2012
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS MINERVA PACHEO FACTS OF THE CASE:
Minerva Pacheo a Revenue Attorney IV, Assistant Chief of Legal Division of BIR Revenue Region 7 Quezon City was reassigned to BIR Revenue Region 4 in San Fernando Pampanga with the same position by virtue of Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO). Pacheo questioned the RTAO validity since the transfer would mean economic dislocation as her travel expenses would increase and it would also mean physical burden on her part as she would be compelled to wake up early in the morning for her travel and return home late at night. Respondent Pacheo considered her reassignment was merely intended to harass and force her out of the BIR in the guises of exigencies of the revenue services. In sum, she considered her transfer as amounting to constructive dismissal. ISSUE:
Whether the transfer of Pacheo is considered constructive dismissal and entitled to back wages. RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that Pacheo is constructively dismissed and it is a settled 22 jurisprudence jurisprudence that an illegally dismissed civil service employee is entitled to back salaries but limited only to a maximum period of five (5) years, and not full back salaries from his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement. The Supreme Court explained that a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible without the employee’s employee’s prior consent but it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or when it is designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service Section 6, Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 , defines constructive dismissal as a situation when an employee quits his work because of the agency head’s unreasonable, humiliating, or demeaning actuations which render continued work impossible. Hence, the employee is deemed to have been illegally dismissed. This may occur although there is no diminution or reduction of salary of the employee. It may be a transfer from one position of dignity to a more servile or menial job.
Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or salary violate a n employee’s security of tenure, which is assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Security of tenure covers not only employees removed without cause, but also cases of unconsented transfers and reassignments, which are tantamount to illegal/constructive removal.
