Facts:
Petitioner, whose request for reconsideration of the travel assignment order was denied by both the respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Finance, contends, among other things, that his assignment from "field" to "desk" work without the corresponding appointment to the latter position, amounts to removal without just cause; and that, if he were to be given another assignment at all, it should properly be as Regional Director of Quezon City, which would actually be a promotion for him.
For their part, respondents allege that the assignment was merely temporary and was effected pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code; that such temporary transfer of petitioner (whose position as Regional Director carries Wapco Range 53) to discharge the functions of Revenue Operations head with Wapco Range 57) in the central office is actually a promotion in rank, because the latter position has higher duties classification under the Wapco rating. Thus, the temporary designation is not violative of the Constitution or of the Civil Service Law and rules.
Issue:
Whether or not the travel assignment order in question, issued pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code and in the lawful exercise of respondents' administrative authority, amounts to removal without just cause
Ruling:
No. Under the law, respondents, as the administrative heads of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, not only have administrative supervision and control over the same, but are also specifically empowered to assign revenue personnel to other duties, thus:
SEC. 12.Assignment of Internal Revenue agents and other employees to other duties. — The Collector of Internal Revenue may, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, assign internal revenue agents and other officers and employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue without change in their official character or salary to such special duties connected with the administration of the revenue laws as the best interest of the service may require. (National Internal Revenue Code.)
Petitioner, however, contends that for the exercise of the foregoing authority to be valid, the assignment of personnel should involve the performance of some "special duties" and should not result in any change in the official character of their positions and salaries. In assailing the validity of the travel assignment order in question, petitioner claims that being a regional director, to discharge the functions of Revenue Operations-head cannot be considered as performance of a special duty.
The term "special duties" mentioned in the law, evidently is here being equated by the petitioner with work requiring the use of some special talent or knowledge. It may be pointed out, however, that the title of Section 12 of the Revenue Law mentions the assignment of revenue employees to "other duties", and the body thereof refers to "such special duties connected with the administration of the revenue law." To our mind, the "special duties" mentioned in the law refer not to a "special" or extraordinary or different undertaking, but to functions or work other than, or not related to, those regularly discharged by the employee concerned. In other words, to the employee reassigned or detailed to another post, the performance of work other than those he was regularly doing, constitutes the doing of "special duties", which supports the view that the designation is not permanent but merely temporary. And, there is nothing wrong, legally or personnel-wise, in the aforequoted provision, giving to the office administrator or supervisor, the authority to formulate personnel program designed to improve the service and to carry out the same, utilizing approved techniques or methods in personnel management, to the end that the abilities of the employees may be harnessed to promote optimum public service. Of course, it must be realized that the exercise of this authority may be abused or carried out to serve some other purposes, as so charged in this case. But, as it was once said, "the possibility of abuse is not an argument against the concession of power, as there is no power that is not susceptible of abuse."
Petitioner, whose request for reconsideration of the travel assignment order was denied by both the respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Finance, contends, among other things, that his assignment from "field" to "desk" work without the corresponding appointment to the latter position, amounts to removal without just cause; and that, if he were to be given another assignment at all, it should properly be as Regional Director of Quezon City, which would actually be a promotion for him.
For their part, respondents allege that the assignment was merely temporary and was effected pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code; that such temporary transfer of petitioner (whose position as Regional Director carries Wapco Range 53) to discharge the functions of Revenue Operations head with Wapco Range 57) in the central office is actually a promotion in rank, because the latter position has higher duties classification under the Wapco rating. Thus, the temporary designation is not violative of the Constitution or of the Civil Service Law and rules.
Issue:
Whether or not the travel assignment order in question, issued pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code and in the lawful exercise of respondents' administrative authority, amounts to removal without just cause
Ruling:
No. Under the law, respondents, as the administrative heads of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, not only have administrative supervision and control over the same, but are also specifically empowered to assign revenue personnel to other duties, thus:
SEC. 12.Assignment of Internal Revenue agents and other employees to other duties. — The Collector of Internal Revenue may, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, assign internal revenue agents and other officers and employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue without change in their official character or salary to such special duties connected with the administration of the revenue laws as the best interest of the service may require. (National Internal Revenue Code.)
Petitioner, however, contends that for the exercise of the foregoing authority to be valid, the assignment of personnel should involve the performance of some "special duties" and should not result in any change in the official character of their positions and salaries. In assailing the validity of the travel assignment order in question, petitioner claims that being a regional director, to discharge the functions of Revenue Operations-head cannot be considered as performance of a special duty.
The term "special duties" mentioned in the law, evidently is here being equated by the petitioner with work requiring the use of some special talent or knowledge. It may be pointed out, however, that the title of Section 12 of the Revenue Law mentions the assignment of revenue employees to "other duties", and the body thereof refers to "such special duties connected with the administration of the revenue law." To our mind, the "special duties" mentioned in the law refer not to a "special" or extraordinary or different undertaking, but to functions or work other than, or not related to, those regularly discharged by the employee concerned. In other words, to the employee reassigned or detailed to another post, the performance of work other than those he was regularly doing, constitutes the doing of "special duties", which supports the view that the designation is not permanent but merely temporary. And, there is nothing wrong, legally or personnel-wise, in the aforequoted provision, giving to the office administrator or supervisor, the authority to formulate personnel program designed to improve the service and to carry out the same, utilizing approved techniques or methods in personnel management, to the end that the abilities of the employees may be harnessed to promote optimum public service. Of course, it must be realized that the exercise of this authority may be abused or carried out to serve some other purposes, as so charged in this case. But, as it was once said, "the possibility of abuse is not an argument against the concession of power, as there is no power that is not susceptible of abuse."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment