500 Phil. 560
CORONA, J.:
SPECIAL ORDERNo. 82Series of 2000
Subject: REASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL
In the exigency of the service, Mr. EMMANUEL T. ILLERA, Port Manager of the Iloilo Fish Port Complex (IFPC) is hereby reassigned to the Central Office of the General Manager effective 03 April 2000. To assume responsibility of over-all port administration, Engr. TITO C. COSEJO, Port Manager, Navotas Fish Port Complex (NFPC) is hereby re-assigned and designated as Acting Port Manager of the Iloilo Fish Port Complex.
Mr. Illera and Engr. Cosejo should immediately clear themselves of their administrative accountabilities before proceeding to their new place of assignment.
This Order shall remain effective until revoked in writing by the undersigned.
M E M O R A N D U M
F O R: The General Manager, PFDA
T H R U: The Asst. General Manager, PFDA
F R O M: The Port Manager, PFDA-IFPC
SUBJECT: REASSIGNMENT
In the late afternoon of 21 March 2000, S.O. no. 82 s. 2000 was faxed to my office. I was surprised when my staff gave this communication to me the next day because considering my transfer or any employees transfers for that matter – would have far reaching official and personal consequences as well, I expected that this matter should have at least first been discussed with me. As it is I do not know for what reasons if any I am being reassigned or even what I am supposed to be doing in your office when I get there. The S.O. itself is silent on these matters.
My situation becomes quite ironic when we look at S.O. no. 81 s. 2000 which is dated 14 March 2000. Before this Order referring to Ms. Irma Catain’s detail to Central Office was even prepared, Ms. Catain first talked to you, me and Atty. Paz to whose office she will be assigned. When we accepted her personal reasons for reassignment our offices worked out the details of her transfer and so the Special Order was issued. If you will recall, last 18 January 2000 an undated S.O. No. 024 was issued transferring Engr. P. Zapanta, the IFPC Acting EMD chief to General Santos and no prior consultation was also done. I thought with the procedure observed in Ms. Catain’s case all that was behind us.
In view therefore of the above I am requesting that S.O. No. 82 s.2000 be reconsidered.(SGD.) EMMANUEL T. ILLERA
M E M O R A N D U MAfter receiving the memorandum, private respondent immediately filed a case for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioner in the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 22 docketed as Civil Case No. 00-26187, to restrain petitioner from transferring him to the central office in Quezon City.
T O: The Port Manager, IFPC
F R O M: The General Manager
SUBJECT: Reassignment to Central Office
Your response dated 22 March 2000 to Special Order No. 82 Series of 2000 regarding your reassignment to the Central Office is noted.
While in the Central Office, you are expected to help review and formulate credit and collection policies that would negate the accumulation of uncollected accounts receivables, in addition to the other duties that may be assigned to you in the interest of the service.
In this connection, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist from the further performance of your duties as Port Manager of the Iloilo Fish Port Complex effective 03 April 2000 and to assume duties and responsibilities as stated.
For strict compliance.(SGD.) PABLO B. CASIMINA
Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[7]Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person.[8] As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant.[9] It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.[10] The Rules specify two modes for effecting substituted service of summons, to wit:
One thing sure is, he forwarded it to their Manila, Quezon City Central Office. In fact, Engr. Tito Cosejo who briefly acted as the Department Manager of the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex, appeared in Court during the summary hearing on the plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of the TRO on April 4, 2000 and informed the Court that the summons was received by their Central Office when defendant was on his way to the province. There was therefore substantial compliance of the rule on service of summons.We disagree.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merits and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.[18] (emphasis ours)Personnel actions, i.e., appointments, promotions, transfers, re-assignments, etc., are specifically provided for in Section 26 (3), Chapter 5, Book V, Subtitle A, of Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987. Thus,
Section 26. Personnel Actions. – xxx any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service shall be known as personnel action. Such action shall include appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation. All personnel actions shall be in accordance with such rules, standards, and regulations as may be promulgated by the Commission.xxx xxx xxx
(3) Transfer. A transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level, or salary without break in service involving the issuance of an appointment.
It shall not be considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service, in which case, the employee concerned shall be informed of the reason therefore. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the Commission. (emphasis ours)
… (N)either does illegality attach to the transfer of an employee from his assigned station to the main office, effected in good faith and in the interest of the service pursuant to Sec. 32 of the Civil Service Act.[20]Here, petitioner ordered the transfer of private respondent from the Iloilo branch to the main office in Manila in the exigency of the service and in order to
… help review and formulate credit and collection policies that would negate the accumulation of uncollected accounts receivables, in addition to the other duties that may be assigned to (him) in the interest of the service.[21]There is nothing to show from the facts presented to us that the order transferring private respondent to Manila was done in bad faith or motivated by ill will. We thus find his refusal to transfer to the main office to be without basis.