View full case

ELSIE S. CAUSING v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner Elsie Causing (Causing) challenges the Resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc (COMELEC En Banc) dismissing her complaint against Municipal Mayor Hernan D. Biron, Sr. (Mayor Biron) for violating COMELEC Resolution No. 8737 in relation to the Omnibus Election Code.

On May 28, 2010, Mayor Biron issued Office Order No. 12, detailing Causing to the Office of the Mayor and directing her to receive direct orders from him. On the same day, he also issued Office Order No. 13, detailing another municipal employee to become the Local Civil Registrar.

Subsequently, Mayor Biron issued Memorandum No. 17 and Memorandum No. 17-A to Causing, directing her to report to the Office of the Mayor and sign MCR documents there.

Causing filed a complaint with the Regional Election Director, claiming that Mayor Biron's orders violated COMELEC Resolution No. 8737 and were illegal as they were made within the election period and without prior authority from the COMELEC.

Mayor Biron argued that the transfer of Causing's office was due to complaints about her behavior and that he had the authority as the local chief executive to take personnel actions for the good of public service. He contended that Causing was not being stripped of her functions as the Municipal Civil Registrar.

The petitioner in this case, Luzviminda Causing, was the Municipal Civil Registrar of Leon, Iloilo. She claimed that during the election period in 2010, she was ordered by the respondent, Mayor Jaro Verdeflor Biron, to physically report to the Mayor's office and perform her functions there instead of her usual office. Causing argued that this action violated COMELEC Resolution No. 8737, which prohibits any movement of personnel during the election period without prior authority from the COMELEC. She also claimed that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the findings that there was no probable cause to hold Mayor Biron liable for violating the Omnibus Election Code. On the other hand, Mayor Biron argued that there was no transfer or detail involved, and that Causing's physical transfer was only intended to closely supervise her after complaints about her behavior were received. He also claimed that the alleged Office Order No. 13, which ordered Causing's detail and the appointment of a Local Civil Registrar-designate, was never received by the concerned parties. The COMELEC, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, defended its resolution, stating that there was no transfer or detail in the literal sense, and that Mayor Biron's actions were within his power of supervision and control as a local chief executive.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Causing was required to file a motion for reconsideration before filing the petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether Mayor Biron's acts violated the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 8737.

  3. Whether the transfer of office location of an employee constitutes a transfer or detail within the meaning of the law that prohibits personnel movements during the election period.

  4. Whether the act of transferring the office space of the employee was justified and valid.

  5. Whether the reassignment of Elsie B. Causing, the Municipal Civil Registrar, was a valid exercise of the employer's management prerogative.

  6. Whether the reassignment constitutes constructive dismissal.

RULING:

  1. Causing was required to file a motion for reconsideration before filing the petition for certiorari.

  2. Mayor Biron's acts did not violate the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 8737.

  3. The transfer of office location does not constitute a transfer or detail within the meaning of the law that prohibits personnel movements during the election period. The law specifically refers to personnel movements from one government agency to another or from one department, division, geographical unit, or subdivision of a government agency to another. The movement involved in this case was merely a change in office location and does not fall within the definition of transfer or detail.

  4. The act of transferring the office space of the employee was justified and valid. The transfer was rooted in the mayor's power of supervision and control over officials and employees serving in his local government unit. It was done to closely supervise the employee after complaints were received against her. The employee continued to perform her tasks and receive her salaries as the Municipal Civil Registrar after the transfer. Therefore, the transfer was justified and valid.

  5. The reassignment of Elsie B. Causing was a valid exercise of the employer's management prerogative. The Court held that Causing was not stripped of her functions as Municipal Civil Registrar (MCR). She was merely required to physically report to the Mayor's Office and perform her functions there. The Court emphasized that she is still the MCR, albeit doing her work physically outside of her usual work station. Additionally, Causing was not deprived of her supervisory function over the staff as she continued to review their work and sign documents they prepared. The Court recognized that the decision to implement changes in the workplace is within the discretion of the employer, as they occupy the ideal vantage point to determine the needs of the agency and how to satisfy those needs. Furthermore, none of the elements of constructive dismissal were present.

  6. The reassignment does not constitute constructive dismissal. The Court ruled that while Causing may encounter difficulties in performing her duties as a supervisor as she is physically distant from her staff, this does not amount to constructive dismissal. The Court stressed that constructive dismissal requires more than just a change in working conditions, and the difficulty encountered by Causing does not meet the required elements for a finding of constructive dismissal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The filing of a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable condition before resorting to the special civil action for certiorari, as it affords the public respondent the opportunity to correct any error.

  • There are exceptions to the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, such as when the order is a patent nullity, the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question.

  • Transfer, as used in the context of the prohibition in COMELEC Resolution No. 8737, refers to any personnel movement from one government agency to another or from one department, division, geographical unit, or subdivision of a government agency to another, with or without the issuance of an appointment.

  • Section 261(g), (h), and (x) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits acts such as the appointment of new employees, creation of new positions, promotion, or giving salary increases during the period before a regular election.

  • Penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Every reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. No act can be pronounced criminal unless it is clearly made so by statute prior to its commission (nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege).

  • Personnel movements prohibited during the election period refer to transfers and details from one government agency to another or from one department, division, geographical unit, or subdivision of a government agency to another. Mere change in office location does not fall within the definition of transfer or detail.

  • Public officials have the power of supervision and control over officials and employees serving in their local government units to ensure the faithful discharge of their duties and functions. Transfer of office space may be justified and valid if rooted in this power.

  • The employer has the management prerogative to implement changes in the workplace, as they occupy the ideal vantage point to determine the needs of the agency and how to satisfy those needs.

  • Constructive dismissal requires more than just a change in working conditions and necessitates the presence of certain elements for a finding of constructive dismissal.