FACTS:

This case involves the reorganization of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) through Resolution No. 94-3710. The resolution merged three administrative units to form a new office called the Research and Development Office (RDO). It also renamed certain offices and reallocated functions to streamline operations and improve service delivery in light of decentralization. Petitioners filed a petition questioning the validity of the resolution and seeking a temporary restraining order. The Commission defended the resolution, stating it was within their authority and did not violate the petitioners' right to security of tenure. The Court granted a temporary restraining order and required public respondents to file a comment. Petitioner de Lima was assigned to another regional office while the incumbent Regional Director was still there to facilitate her takeover. Petitioner Fernandez was assigned to another regional office due to the incumbent Director being under investigation. The Commission argued that Resolution No. 94-3710 did not abolish any public office as defined in the law of public officers.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the changes introduced through Resolution No. 94-3710 amounted to the "abolition" of public offices.

2. Whether the reassignment of the petitioners to different offices violated their right to security of tenure.

3. Whether the re-assignment of the petitioners from the Regional District Office to the Commission's Regional Offices constitute removals without lawful cause.

4. Whether the re-assignment violates the constitutional right of petitioners to security of tenure.

5. Whether the reassignment of the petitioners in the interest of the service is legally valid.

6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to security of tenure or permanence in any specific station.

7. Whether the prohibition on unconsented transfers under Article IX(B), Section 2(3) of the Constitution applies only to officers who are appointed, not merely assigned, to a particular station.

8. Whether the reassignment of the petitioners from their original stations to different offices without their consent violated their constitutional right to security of tenure.

RULING:

1. The changes introduced through Resolution No. 94-3710 did not amount to the "abolition" of public offices. The resolution merely introduced internal changes in the organization of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which is authorized by law to make such changes as the need arises. The changes did not involve the termination of the relationship of public employment between the Commission and its officers and employees.

2. The reassignment of the petitioners to different offices did not violate their right to security of tenure. Appointments to the staff of the Commission are not appointments to a specified public office, but rather appointments to particular positions or ranks. Reassignment is recognized as a management prerogative vested in the Commission and any department or agency of government. As long as reassignment does not involve a reduction in rank, status, and salary, it is allowable under the law.

3. The re-assignment of the petitioners from the Regional District Office to the Commission's Regional Offices does not constitute removals without lawful cause.

4. The re-assignment does not violate the constitutional right of petitioners to security of tenure.

5. Yes, the reassignment of the petitioners in the interest of the service is legally valid.

6. No, the petitioners are not entitled to security of tenure or permanence in any specific station.

7. The prohibition on unconsented transfers under the Constitution applies only to officers who are appointed, not merely assigned, to a specific station. It does not proscribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that authorizes the periodic reassignment of employees and officers for the improvement of the agency's service.

8. The reassignment of the petitioners without their consent to different offices did not violate their constitutional right to security of tenure. The use of approved techniques or methods in personnel management to enhance employee abilities for optimum public service cannot be objected to.

PRINCIPLES:

• The term "public office" refers to the right, authority, and duty, created and conferred by law, by which an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government.

• Changes in the organization of a government agency, as authorized by law, are allowable as the need arises.

• Reassignment is a personnel action allowed in the civil service as long as it does not involve a reduction in rank, status, and salary.

• Re-assignment or transfer of government employees does not constitute removal without lawful cause, as long as their rank, status, and salary are maintained.

• The constitutional right to security of tenure does not extend to appointments or assignments that do not specify a particular station or school.

• Public service dictates that transfers may be made in certain stations, and the officer's right to security of tenure depends on the nature of the appointment.

• An appointment without indication of a specific station allows for the employee to be assigned to any station and does not confer security of tenure or permanence in any specific station.

• Assignments and appointments are two distinct concepts in the law of public officers.

• The subsequent assignment of the appointees does not detract from the perfection attained by the appointments.

• Transfers or reassignments can be made without the need for charges, trial, or consent of the employee if it does not affect a substantial change in title, rank, and salary.

• The prohibition on unconsented transfers under Article IX(B), Section 2(3) of the Constitution applies only to officers who are appointed, not merely assigned, to a particular station.

• A transfer carried out under a specific statute empowering the head of an agency to periodically reassign employees and officers for the improvement of the agency's service is not prohibited by the Constitution.

• The use of approved techniques or methods in personnel management to harness the abilities of employees to promote optimum public service is allowed.

• The reassignment of employees without their consent does not violate their constitutional right to security of tenure if there is a valid statutory basis for such reassignment.