REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CONSTITUTION HILLS, BATASAN PAMBANSA COMPLEX
DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY

MENCHITA F. CELESTRA,
Complainant-Appellant,
Admin. Complaint No. ____________
For: Violation of Sec. 6 (c) and Sec.32
(d) of R.A. 7305 (Magna Carta of
-versus- Public Health Workers) and
Violation of Sec. 13 (a) (3) of the 2017
CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments
and other Human Resource Actions

RAUL S. PALINO ,
Respondent-Appellee.
x----------------------------------x

APPEAL MEMORANDUM

PARTIES

1. Complainant-appellant is MENCHITA F. CELESTRA is the incumbent

Municipal Health Officer with residence address at 323 F. Raymundo St.,
Lagundi, Morong, Rizal. She can be served with orders, notices and processes of
this Honorable Court at the address of undersigned counsel indicated below.

2. Respondent-appellee RAUL S. PALINO is the incumbent Municipal Mayor of

the municipality of Teresa, Province of Rizal and can be served with orders,
notices and processes of this Honorable Court at the said address.

NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

3. This is an appeal from the letter-order dated September 6, 20191 issued by

respondent-appellee, wherein he ordered complainant-appellant to report for duty
at the barangay health center of barangay May-iba allegedly “pending the
resolution of (complainant-appellant’s) present administrative cases” which is an
illegal and invalid reassignment in violation of Sec. 6 (c) and Sec. 32 (d) of R.A.
7305 (Magna Carta of Public Health Workers).

4. The undersigned counsel is filing the instant appeal based on Sec. 6 (c) of R.A.
7305 which gives complainant the right to appeal from the said reassignment.

5. Under Sec. 66, Rule 13 (Appeal in Disciplinary Cases) of the 2017 Revised Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), appeals to this
Honorable Office must be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
disciplinary order. Complainant received the aforesaid Letter-Order on September
9, 2019. Hence, the deadline for submission of the appeal memorandum
September 24, 2019. This petition is thus timely filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
Original copy of which is attached herewith as Annex “A”,
 1. On September 4, 2019, respondent-appellee issued a Memorandum 2 in reply to
complainant-appellant’s letter on even date asking for her automatic reinstatement
after serving out her 60-day preventive suspension. The said Memorandum
alleged that complainant-appellant’s 60th day of preventive suspension fell on
September 8, 2019 and advised her to check with the Municipality’s Human
Resource Office on Monday, September 9, 2019 regarding the respondent-
appellee’s response and/or decision on complainant-appellant’s letter asking for
her automatic reinstatement.

2. On September 9, 2019, complainant-appellant reported for work at her office

located at the Municipal Hall, she was flabbergasted when she received the
assailed Memorandum dated Sept. 6, 2019 which ordered her to report for work at
the barangay health center of barangay May-iba which is completely independent
and different from her specifically designated office at the Office of the Municipal
Health Officer, Teresa, Rizal as per her original appointment letter3.

3. Complainant-appellant, while reporting for work at the said barangay health

station, vehemently disagrees with the said order and deems the same illegal and
invalid for being contrary to law.

4. Respondent-appellee’s grossly abusive, arbitrary, despotic and whimsical exercise

of his appointing/disciplining power and authority is also a violation the 2017
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Human Resource Actions which were
revised by this Honorable Commission in July 2018 and which are supposed to be
applied suppletorily to the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers.

5. Hence, this Appeal.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT-APPELLEE’S ORDER

REASSIGNING COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT TO A BARANGAY
HEALTH STATION IN BARANGAY MAY-IBA AS CONTAINED IN HIS
MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 VIOLATES SEC. 6 (C)
AND SEC. 32 (D) OF R.A. 7305 (MAGNA CARTA OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WORKERS) AND SEC. 13 (A) (3) OF THE 2017 OMNIBUS RULES ON
APPOINTMENTS AND OTHER HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIONS ISSUED
BY THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

1. Respondent-appellee’s assailed Order clearly and unequivocally constitutes a

glaring violation of Sec. 6 (c) of R.A. 7305, viz:
“SEC. 6. Transfer or Geographical Reassignment of Public health Workers.

(a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of

equivalent rank, level or salary without break in service;

(b) a geographical reassignment, hereinafter referred to as "reassignment," is

a movement from one geographical location to another; and

2
Original copy of which is attached herewith as Annex “B”
3
Colored photocopy of the original copy of complainant-appellant’s appointment is attached herewith as
Annex “C”.
       (c) a public health worker shall not be transferred and/or reassigned,
except when made in the interest of public service, in which case, the
employee concerned shall be informed of the reasons therefore in writing. If
the public health worker believes that there is no justification for the transfer
and/or reassignment, he/she may appeal his/her case to the Civil Service
Commission, which shall cause his/her reassignment to be held in abeyance;
Provided, That no transfer and/or reassignment whatsoever shall be made three
(3) months before any local or national elections: Provided, further, That the
necessary expenses of the transfer and/or reassignment of the public health
worker and his/her immediate family shall be paid for the
Government.”(emphasis ours)

Based on the foregoing express and clear provisions of the law covering
complainant-appellant herein, she cannot be transferred and/or reassigned, except
when in the interest of public service, in which case, she should have been
informed of the reasons therefore in writing. In the instant case, there is no
showing that complainant-appellant was being reassigned in the interest of
public service. Moreover, the assailed Memorandum did not even contain the
reasons why she was being reassigned which evinces respondent-appellee’s
whimsical and arbitrary exercise of his appointing/disciplining power.

2. The same illegal reassignment likewise is a violation of Sec. 32 (d) of the said
R.A. 7305, to wit:

“SEC. 32. Freedom from Interference or Coercion . - It shall be unlawful for
any person to commit any of the following acts of interference or coercion:

      (a) to require as a condition of employment that a public health worker shall
not join a health workers’ organization or union or shall relinquish membership
therein;

      (b) to discriminate in regard to hiring or tenure of employment or any item or

condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any
health workers’ organization or union;

      (c) to prevent a health worker from carrying out duties laid upon him/her by
his/her position in the organization or union, or to penalize him/her for the action
undertaken in such capacity;

      (d) to harass or interfere with the discharge of the functions of the health
worker when these are calculated to intimidate or to prevent the
performance of his/her duties and responsibilities; and
      (e) to otherwise interfere in the establishment, functioning, or administration
of health workers organization or unions through acts designed to place such
organization or union under the control of government authority. (emphasis ours)

Likewise, the aforesaid act of arbitrarily reassigning complainant-appellant is

clearly a form of harassment or interference which is designed to intimidate or
prevent her from performing her duties and responsibilities as a direct offshoot of
the administrative and criminal cases filed by complainant-appellant against
respondent-appellee herein. This illegal and vindictive act of respondent-appellee
is a clear violation of the protection afforded complainant-appellant under Sec. 32
(d) of R.A. 7305.

3. Aside from the fact the reassignment of complainant-appellant herein violated

Secs. 6 (c) and 32 (d) of the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers for not having
been made in the interest of public service (in fact the same was made without
 rhyme or reason) and only calculated to intimidate complainant-appellant herein,
the same may be considered as “constructive dismissal” under Sec. 13 (a) (3)
of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Human Resource Actions
(Revised July 2018) issued and adopted by this Honorable Commission, the
relevant portion of which provide that :

“Reassignment that constitutes constructive dismissal may be any of the

following:

i. Reassignment of an employee to perform duties and responsibilities

inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities of his/her position such as
from a position of dignity to a more servile or menial job;

ii. Reassignment to an office not in the existing organizational structure.

iii. Reassignment to an existing office but the employee is not given any definite
set of duties and responsibilities.

iv. Reassignment that will cause significant financial dislocation or will cause
difficulty or hardship on the part of an employee because of geographic
location; or

v. Reassignment that is done indiscriminately or whimsically because the

law is not intended as a convenient shield for the appointing/disciplining
officer to harass or oppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing
and promoting public interest such as reassignment of career service
officials and employees with valid appointments during change of
administration of elective and appointive officials.

In the instant case, complainant-appellant was reassigned to a barangay

health station with duties and responsibilities which are inconsistent with
her previous duties and responsibilities which carried a position of
dignity to a more servile or menial job – clearly an act intended to
humiliate or demean complainant-appellant herein for having the guts to
fight respondent-appellee.

It was also a reassignment to an office which is not in the existing

organizational structure since the barangay is clearly a different local
government unit with a different organizational structure.

Lastly, the reassignment was done whimsically, arbitrarily and

despotically without rhyme or reason with a clear motive—to harass,
oppress and intimidate complainant-appellant-- in obvious retaliation for
the administrative and criminal cases which she filed against respondent-
appellee.

4. Under Sec. 13 (a) (4), the remedy for the employee who feels aggrieved by the
reassignment order is to appeal the same within 15 days upon receipt thereof to
the Commission or CSC-RO with jurisdiction, as provided under specific law, if
he/she believes there is no justification for the reassignment. Pending appeal, the
reassignment shall not be executory. 4 The Decision of the CSC RO may be
further appealed to the Commission within 15 days from receipt thereof.

5. Finally, Sec. 13 (a) (5) expressly states that reassignment of public health
workers, public social workers, public school teachers and all other professions

4
CSC vs. Pacheo, G.R. No. 178021, January 25, 2012
 covered by special laws shall be governed by their respective laws. However,
the rules herein mentioned shall be applied suppletorily.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Commission CANCEL, REVERSE and NULLIFY the Memorandum
Order dated September 6, 2019 issued by respondent-appellee herein and that another
one be issued ORDERING that complainant-appellant be immediately reinstated to
her previous position and office as Municipal Health Officer.

Petitioner further prays for such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem
just and equitable under the premises.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Quezon City
September 19, 2019

ATTY. NONNATUS P. CHUA

Counsel for the Complainant-Appellant
Rm. 406, S. Medalla Bldg.
EDSA cor. Gen. MacArthur St.,
Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City
PTR No. 7785304/ 07-19-2019 / Makati City
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 012419 /O.R. no. 961392
Date of Enrollment 1-28-2014
Roll of Attorneys No. 35618
MCLE Compliance No. V-0013279/3-11-2016
Telephone: 09478208607/09273696101
EMAIL: [email protected]

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MENCHITA F. CELESTRA, Filipino, of legal age, married and with residence

address at 323 F. Raymundo St., Lagundi, Morong, Rizal, after being duly sworn in to
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the complainant-appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the instant Appeal Memorandum;

3. That I have read this Appeal Memorandum and confirm that the allegations stated
herein are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and based on
authentic records in my possession;

4. That I hereby certify that I have not commenced any action or proceeding
involving the issues covered by this Appeal Memorandum before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals, or any other judicial
tribunal;

5. That to the best of my knowledge, no action or proceeding which involves the

issues covered by this Appeal Memorandum is pending before the Supreme
 Court, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals, or any other judicial
tribunal;

6. That should I gain knowledge that any such action or proceeding is either pending
or has been terminated, I shall report such fact to this Honorable Office within
five (5) days from the date that I obtain knowledge thereof.

MENCHITA F. CELESTRA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ in

________________ by the Affiant whose identity I have confirmed through her
Identification Number____________________.

Doc No.____
Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of _____.