OSEA vs
MALAYA
G.R. No. 139821, January 30, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioner Eleonor
Osea filed a protest case with the Civil Service Commission alleging that she
was appointed as Officer-in-Charge, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
of Camarines Sur, by the then Secretary of DECS, upon the endorsement of the
Provincial School Board of Camarines Sur. However, despite this, President
Fidel Ramos, appointed respondent Corazon Malaya to the position of Schools
Division Superintendent of Camarines Sur.
Petitioner
claims that the appointment of respondent was made without prior consultation
with the Provincial School Board, in violation of Section 99 of the Local
Government Code as well as her vested right as the Schools Division
Superintendent of Camarines Sur. Petitioner prayed that respondent’s
appointment be recalled and set aside for being null and void.
The
pertinent portion of Section 99 of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the
Local Government Code of 1991, states:
Sec.
99. Functions of Local School Boards.
--- The provincial, city or municipal school board shall:
xxx xxx xxx.
The Department of Education, Culture
and Sports shall consult the local school boards on the appointment of division
superintendents, district supervisors, school principals, and other school
officials.
The Civil
Service Commission dismissed petitioner’s protest complaint. The CSC found that
President Ramos appointed respondent without any specific division. Thus, respondent
performed the functions of Schools Division Superintendent in Iriga City. On
November 3, 1997, Sec. Gloria designated respondent as Schools Division
Superintendent of Camarines Sur, and petitioner Osea as Schools Division
Superintendent of Iriga City. CSC held that Sec.99 of the LGC of 1991
contemplates a situation where the DECS issues the appointments, whereas
respondent’s appointment was made by the President, in the exercise of his
appointing power. Moreover, the designation of respondent as Schools Division
Superintendent of Camarines Sur and of petitioner as Schools Division
Superintendent of Iriga City were in the nature of reassignments, in which case
consultation with the local school board was unnecessary.
Petitioner’s
MR was denied. Hence, she filed a petition for certiorari
ISSUE:
Whether
respondent’s appointment require the mandatory consultation with the Local
School Board under Sec.99 of RA 7160.
HELD:
Section 99
of the LGC applies to appointments made by the DECS because at the time of the
enactment of the LGC, schools division superintendents were appointed by the
DECS to specific division or location. However, in 1994, the Career Executive
Service Board issued a Memorandum Circular placing the positions of schools
division superintendent and assistant schools division superintendent within
the career executive service. Consequently, the power to appoint persons
to career executive service positions was transferred from the DECS to the
President. The appointment may not be specific as to location. The
prerogative to designate the appointees to their particular stations was vested
in the Department of Education, Culture and Sports Secretary, pursuant to the
exigencies of the service, as provided in Department of Education, Culture and
Sports Order No. 75, Series of 1996.
In the case
at bar, the appointment issued by President Ramos in favor of respondent to the
Schools Division Superintendent position on September 3, 1996 did not specify
her station. It was Secretary Gloria who, in a Memorandum dated November 3,
1997, assigned and designated respondent to the Division of Camarines Sur, and
petitioner to the Division of Iriga City.
In addition,
under the circumstances, the designation of respondent as Schools Division
Superintendent of Camarines Sur was not a case of appointment but rather in
the nature of reassignment from Iriga City, where she previously exercised
her functions as Officer-in-Charge-Schools Division Superintendent, to
Camarines Sur. Therefore, Section 99 of the LGC, which requires prior
consultation with the local school board does not apply. It only refers to
appointments made by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Such is
the plain meaning of the said law.
Appointment vs. Reassignment
Appointment
should be distinguished from reassignment. An appointment may be defined as the selection, by the
authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation, the
appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is
replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office.
On the other
hand, a reassignment is merely a movement
of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department
or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary and does
not require the issuance of an appointment. In the same vein, a designation connotes merely the
imposition of additional duties on an incumbent official
Petitioner asserts
a vested right to the position of Schools Division Superintendent of Camarines
Sur, citing her endorsement by the Provincial School Board. Her qualification
to the office, however, lacks one essential ingredient, i.e., her appointment
thereto. While she was recommended by Secretary Gloria to President Ramos for
appointment to the position of Schools Division Superintendent of Camarines
Sur, the recommendation was not acted upon by the President.
Petitioner
Osea's designation as Officer-in-Charge, Assistant Schools Division
Superintendent, was expressly made subject to further advice from the DECS.
Thus, her designation was temporary. In fact, there was a need to recommend her
to the President for appointment in a permanent capacity. Inasmuch as she occupied
her position only temporarily, petitioner can be transferred or reassigned to
other positions without violating her right to security of tenure. Indeed,
petitioner has no vested right to the position of Schools Division
Superintendent of Camarines Sur.
0
Comments
