×
ADVISORY!

The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question Security of Tenure

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #1491 by Concerned Public Servant
Concerned Public Servant created the topic: Security of Tenure
Hello CSC,

Good day!

Our Agency (a income generating GOCC) is entering a Joint Venture Agreement with a Private Proponent (Entity) and almost all of the functions of our agency will be covered by the Private Proponent (e.g. Management, Operations and Maintenance) including our primary mandate! There are some employees within our agency who are against this JVA because we believed that this practice is NOT for the best of the service and the consuming public in general.

The Board Chairman and Higher Management are now verbally communicating with us and Persuading us to either file for early retirement or transfer employment to the Private Partner (Proponent/Entity) in this Joint Venture.

Question:

How can we preserved our security of tenure? The aforesaid Board Chairman verbally claims that they will be abolishing our positions within our agency because our job description will be covered by the Private Partner.

The said Board Chairman is scarring or frightening these employees that they will be on "FLOATING STATUS" and will not be paid of thwir salaries if they wouldn't decide now whether to retire or transfer employment.

Seeking for your immediate respose regarding this matters.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 1 week ago #1492 by Concerned Public Servant
Concerned Public Servant replied the topic: Security of Tenure

Concerned Public Servant wrote: Hello CSC,

Good day!

Our Agency (a income generating GOCC) is entering a Joint Venture Agreement with a Private Proponent (Entity) and almost all of the functions of our agency will be covered by the Private Proponent (e.g. Management, Operations and Maintenance) including our primary mandate! There are some employees within our agency who are against this JVA because we believed that this practice is NOT for the best of the service and the consuming public in general.

The Board Chairman and Higher Management are now verbally communicating with us and Persuading us to either file for early retirement or transfer employment to the Private Partner (Proponent/Entity) in this Joint Venture.

Question:

How can we preserved our security of tenure? The aforesaid Board Chairman verbally claims that they will be abolishing our positions within our agency because our job description will be covered by the Private Partner.

The said Board Chairman is scarring or frightening these employees that they will be on "FLOATING STATUS" and will not be paid of thwir salaries if they wouldn't decide now whether to retire or transfer employment.

Seeking for your immediate respose regarding this matters.

Thank you.


we are all permanent government employees by the way...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 1 week ago #1493 by Action Officer 9
Action Officer 9 replied the topic: Security of Tenure
To the concerned citizen:

You represented that positions within your agency, your position included, would be abolished because its job description will be covered by the Private Partner, under a joint venture. You now want to be advised on how your security of tenure could be preserve.

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render an opinion or ruling on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially if the material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

It is well settled under the Philippine Constitutional that "No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law". Such mandate has the spirit of preserving one's security of tenure to the position he/she is holding in government service.

However, as regards your case, we invite your attention to the case of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. vs. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, et al., G.R. No. 196425 dated July 24, 2012, the Supreme Court stated thus:

The abolition of the PAGC did not require the creation of a new, additional and distinct office as the duties and functions that pertained to the defunct anti-graft body were simply transferred to the ODESLA, which is an existing office within the Office of the President Proper. The reorganization required no more than a mere alteration of the administrative structure of the ODESLA through the establishment of a third division – the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division – through which ODESLA could take on the additional functions it has been tasked to discharge under E.O. 13. In Canonizado v. Aguirre, We ruled that –

Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them. It involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.

The Reorganization was Pursued in Good Faith.

A valid reorganization must not only be exercised through legitimate authority but must also be pursued in good faith. A reorganization is said to be carried out in good faith if it is done for purposes of economy and efficiency. It appears in this case that the streamlining of functions within the Office of the President Proper was pursued with such purposes in mind.”
Clearly, if the abolition of an agency is pursued in good faith, that is, for purposes of economy and efficiency, is valid.
"

Thus, if abolition of an agency is carried out on legitimate grounds, there is no impairment of the security of tenure of the affected employees (Kapisanan ng Mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board vs. Commissioner Fe B. Barin et al., G.R. No. 150974 dated June 29, 2007).

As regards the payment of separation pay, this is only allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6656 also known as An Act To Protect The Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers And Employees In The Implementation Of Government Reorganization when an employee is separated due to a valid reorganization stating, to wit:

"Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also separated for cause, all officers and employees, who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits under existing laws within ninety (90) days from the date of the effectivity of their separation or front the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be: provided, that application for clearance has been filed and no action thereon has been made by the corresponding department or agency. Those who are not entitled to said benefits shall be paid a separation gratuity in the amount equivalent to one (l) month salary for every year of service. Such separation pay and retirement benefits shall have priority of payment out of the savings of the department or agency concerned."(Underscoring supplied).

We hope we have enlightened you on the matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum