Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Gatmaitan v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    Petitioner Rudigario C. Gatmaitan filed an administrative complaint against private respondent Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales for his reassignment from heading the hospital housekeeping unit to the OR-DR complex, which petitioner claimed changed his duties and violated his constitutional rights. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's reassignment was valid, as it was a mere reassignment under the civil service rules, not a demotion, since it did not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. As no new appointment was issued giving petitioner diminution in duties, the reassignment was brought about by service exigencies

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gatmaitan v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    146 views1 page
    Petitioner Rudigario C. Gatmaitan filed an administrative complaint against private respondent Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales for his reassignment from heading the hospital housekeeping unit to the OR-DR complex, which petitioner claimed changed his duties and violated his constitutional rights. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's reassignment was valid, as it was a mere reassignment under the civil service rules, not a demotion, since it did not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. As no new appointment was issued giving petitioner diminution in duties, the reassignment was brought about by service exigencies

    Original Description:

    A case about a valid reassignmen; Difference between "reassignment" and "demotion"

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Rudigario C. Gatmaitan filed an administrative complaint against private respondent Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales for his reassignment from heading the hospital housekeeping unit to the OR-DR complex, which petitioner claimed changed his duties and violated his constitutional rights. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's reassignment was valid, as it was a mere reassignment under the civil service rules, not a demotion, since it did not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. As no new appointment was issued giving petitioner diminution in duties, the reassignment was brought about by service exigencies

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    146 views1 page

    Gatmaitan v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    Petitioner Rudigario C. Gatmaitan filed an administrative complaint against private respondent Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales for his reassignment from heading the hospital housekeeping unit to the OR-DR complex, which petitioner claimed changed his duties and violated his constitutional rights. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's reassignment was valid, as it was a mere reassignment under the civil service rules, not a demotion, since it did not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. As no new appointment was issued giving petitioner diminution in duties, the reassignment was brought about by service exigencies

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Gatmaitan v.

    Gonzales | 492 SCRA 591


    FACTS: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
    challenging the decisionof the Court of Appeals3 (CA) which affirmed the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
    dismissing the administrative complaint of petitioner Rudigario C. Gatmaitan against private respondent Dr. Ricardo B.
    Gonzales, for lack of substantial evidence. Petioner avers that his reassignment to OR-DR Complex changed his duties
    which violated his constitutional rights to property protection, security of job tenure and the demotion while there might
    had been no demotion in his salaries, it could not be denied that there was a demotion in his status pointing to a clear case
    of illegal reassignment which constitute grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an officer.
    Citing several cases, petitioner insists that his demotion is tantamount to a constructive dismissal and it is only just and
    proper that he be given reparation by reinstating him to his previous position as Head of the Hospital Housekeeping Unit.
    ISSUE: Whether the reassignment from the lobby to the OR-DR ordered by respondent was valid.
    RULING: YES. Rule VII of Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292, Section 10 of the Rules clearly defines
    reassignment as the movement of an employee from one organizational unit 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 while the
    succeeding Section 11 of the same Rule defines demotion as a movement form one position to another involving the
    issuance of an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or rank which may or may not involve
    reduction in salary. An employee may be re-assigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency;
    Provided, That such re-assignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status and salary.
    As can be gleamed from the above, there was no demotion involved in the transfer of petitioners workstation since what
    transpired was merely a reassignment brought about by the exigencies of the service. The law is clear on this point a
    demotion would entail the issuance of another appointment that would have given petitioner diminution in duties,
    responsibilities, status or rank yet no appointment to this effect was ever issued.

    You might also like