GR. NO.

189041 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS YU JULY 31, 2012

Doctrine: Personnel of national agencies or offices shall be absorbed by the
LGUs to which they belong or in whose areas they are assigned to the extent
that it is administratively viable determined by the oversight committee:
Provided, that the rights accorded to such personnel pursuant to civil service
law, rules and regulations shall not be impaired:
Facts:
A devolution program was implemented by the national government
pursuant to R.A. No. 7160 devolving to the local government units the
responsibility for the provision of basic services and facilities.
Prior to the devolution, the position of Provincial Health Officer II of the
DOH Regional Office No. IX in Zamboanga City was held by Dr. Fortunato
Castillo as well as being the head of the Basilan Health Hospital and
Public Health Services. Dr. Agnes Ouida Yu, on the other hand is PHO I.
After the devolution, the Governor of Basilan, Governor Gerry
Salapuddin, refused to accept Dr. Castillo as the incumbent PHO II, so
she was retained by DOH until her retirement in 1996. In 1994, Dr. Yu
was appointed by the Governor as PHO II.
In 1998, by virtue of R.A. No. 8543, the Basilan Provincial Hospital was
converted to a tertiary hospital, and the hospital positions previously
devolved to the LGU of Basilan were re-nationalized and reverted to the
DOH. The position of PHO II was reclassified to Chief of Hospital II.
While Dr. Yu is among the reverted personnel, she was made to retain
her original item of PHO II and the Secretary of DOH appointed Dr.
Domingo Dayrit to the position of CHO II. Dr. Yu filed a letter of protest
before the Civil Service Commission.
The Civil Service Commission issued a resolution granting the protest,
revoking the appointment of Dr. Dayrit and directing the DOH Secretary
to appoint Dr. Yu. On motion for reconsideration, however, the CSC
reversed its resolution, contending that PHO was never devolved as it
was retained by the DOH, that the PHO II position of Dr. Yu was newlycreated and therefore she did not have a vested right to the CHO II
position. The motion for reconsideration being dismissed, she filed a
petition of review to the CA to which the CA reversed and set aside the
resolution of CSC.
The CSC now files this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
Issue:
Whether or not acceptance of personnel devolved form the agencies is
mandatory.
Whether or not there was abandonment of office when Dr. Castillo failed to
assert her rights.
Held:
Yes. Devolution is an act by which the national government confers
power and authority upon the various local government units to perform
specific functions and responsibilities. Section 17(i) of the Local
Government Code prescribes the manner of devolution, as follows:
o (i) The devolution contemplated in this Code shall include the
transfer to LGUs of the records, equipment, and other assets and

personnel of the national agencies and offices corresponding to the

devolved powers, functions and responsibilities.
Personnel of said national agencies or offices shall be absorbed by the
LGUs to which they belong or in whose areas they are assigned to the
extent that it is administratively viable as determined by the said
oversight committee: Provided, that the rights accorded to such
personnel pursuant to civil service law, rules and regulations shall not be
impaired: Provided further, that the regional directors who are career
executive service officers and other officers of similar rank in the said
regional offices who cannot be absorbed by the LGU shall be retained by
the National Government, without any diminution of rank, salary or
tenure.
E.O. No. 503 is the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said
section. Section 2 thereof states:
o Section 2. Principles and Policies Governing Transfer of Personnel.
o a. Coverage, Tenure, Compensation and Career Development. xxx
o 2. The absorption of the National Government Agency Personnel by
the LGU shall be mandatory, in which case, the LGUs shall create
the equivalent positions of the affected personnel except when it is
not administratively viable.
o 3. Absorption is not administratively viable when there is a
duplication of functions unless the LGU opts to absorb the
personnel concerned.
o 4. The national personnel who are not absorbed by the LGUs under
no. 3 above, shall be retained by the NGA concerned, subject to
civil service law, rules and regulations.Xxx
o 12. Except as herein otherwise provided, devolved permanent
personnel shall be automatically reappointed by the LCE concerned
immediately upon their transfer which shall not go beyond June 30,
1992.
Hence, as stated in E.O. 503, the absorption of Dr. Castillo by the LGU is
mandatory. The Governors refusal, without showing that it is not
administratively viable, is invalid and whimsical.
No. Abandonment of office is the voluntary relinquishment of an office by
the holder with the intention of terminating his possession and control
thereof. In order to constitute abandonment of office, it must be total and
under such circumstance as clearly to indicate absolute relinquishment.
There must be a complete abandonment of duties of such continuance
that the law will infer a relinquishment. Abandonment of duties is a
voluntary act; it springs form and is accompanied by deliberation and
freedom of choice. The two essential elements of abandonment are: (1)
an intention to abandon; (2) an overt or external act by which the
intention is carried into effect (Canonizado vs Aguirre).
In the case at bar, there is no voluntary abandonment because of the
refusal of the governor to accept the devolved NGA personnel. The fact
that Dr. Castillo did not question the refusal which is seemingly a
lackadaisical attitude towards protecting her rights is not tantamount to
abandonment. This is because, according to the Supreme Court, the risk
of incurring the ire of a powerful politician effectively tied her hands and

it has become quite understandable that she could not don her gloves
and fight even if she wants to.
In the concurring opinion of Justice Leonardo-De Castro, it was however
contended that there was an abandonment since there was an
acquiescence of the officer in her wrongful removal or discharge,
coupled with her acceptance of he re-absorption by the DOH.