Teotico v.

Agda

Facts:
Cesar Lanuza, then Administrator of the Fiber Development Authority, an agency attached
to the Department of Agriculture, appointed Democrito Agda as Chief Fiber Development Officer
of the FIDA effective upon assumption of office. This appointment does not indicate any specific
station or place of assignment. Under Special Order No. 29, series of 1984, which was to take
effect immediately and to "remain in force until revoked," Administrator Lanuza designated Agda
as Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II. In Special Order No. 219, series of
1987, Administrator Lanuza "temporarily re-assigned" Agda, "in the interest of the service," at
the main office of the Administrator to perform special functions which may be assigned to him,
and one Mr. Epitacio Lanuza, Jr., Assistant Fiber Regional Administrator, was designated Officer in
Charge of FIDA Region I.
Agda filed an a petition to stop the implementation of S.O. No. 219 before the CSC
claiming that the designation of Epitacio Lanuza as OIC of FIDA Region I is against the interest of
public service because the latter was involved in 2 cases of dishonesty and that Administrator
Lanuza and Eptacio were cousins. While Agda’s petition was still pending, Administrator Lanuza
issued S.O. No. 239 designating Wilfredo Seguritan as OIC of FIDA Region I vice Epitacio Lanuza.
On January 1988, Joaquin Teotico issued a memo to Agda asking him to show up because
even though by virtue of S.O. 219 directed him to report to the main office, he cannot be found.
Agda replied to Teotico advising him to refer to guard’s logbook to know where he is in the part 3
weeks. He also reminded Teotico of the pendency of his petition re: S.O. 219 hence, its
implementation should be held in abeyance.
Thereafter, Teotico requested Agda, by means of a routing slip, to turn over to Seguritan the
keys to the vault containing the blank checks, official receipts, approved checks and other vital
documents of FIDA. Agda refused to do so, indorsed the routing slip to the DA, citing the
pendency of his petition re: S.O. 219 and that he won’t budge until the same be resolved.
Teotico charged Agda of insurbodination and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the
service for not complying with his memo and routing slip. He then placed Agda under preventive
suspension. Agda inquired with the COMELEC whether S.O. 219 was submitted to them for
approval and the latter replied to the effect that their records do not show any such submission
for approval. Subsequently Agda filed a petition before the RTC of Makati against Teotico et. al.
alleging that S.O. 219 was null and void for violating the Civil Service Law and Omnibus Election
Code since the said S.O. effected his detail/re-assignment within 3 months before elections. He
cited the local elections of January 1988. Teotico filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
cause of action for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Agda finding that the actuations of
Teotico et. al. violated Agda’s due process rights.

Issue:
WON RTC committed grave abuse of discretion for issuing the abovementioned writ?

Held:
Yes. Agda was not appointed as Fiber Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I, but as Chief
Fiber Development Officer; he was not appointed to any specific station. He was merely
designated as Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II. Not having been appointed
to any specific station, he could be transferred or assigned to any other place by the head of
office where in the opinion of the latter his services may be utilized more effectively. The case of
Ibañez v. COMELEC and DECS v. CA squarely apply in the case at bar.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that Special Order No. 29 of 2 January 1984 merely
designated Agda as Acting Regional Administrator for Regions I and II. Such being the case, the
rule enunciated in Cuadra v. Cordova, on temporary appointments or appointments in an acting
capacity that they are terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority, is applicable to
Agda. He can neither claim a vested right to the station to which he was assigned nor to security
of tenure thereat. Accordingly, he could be re-assigned to any place and Special Order No. 219
reassigning him at the Office of the Administrator of the FIDA "in the interest of the service" was
in order. Although denominated as "reassignment", it was in fact a mere detail in that office.
The Civil Service Law allows transfer, detail and re-assignment. If the employee concerned
believes that there is no justification therefore, he "may appeal his case to" the Civil Service
Commission. Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the decision to detail an employee
shall be executory. Agda actually invoked the jurisdiction of the CSC by filing his petition but he
failed to exert genuine efforts to seek relief but merely used the pendency of such petition in
justifying his non-compliance with Teotico’s directives.
It cannot also be said that the issuance of S.O. 219 violated the Omnibus Election Code
considering that (a) he raised this matter for the first time only in his Amended Petition, or five
(5) months after the issuance of the Special Order. No evidence has been presented, or at least
strongly and convincingly suggested, to prove or show that no prior approval was obtained by
Administrator Lanuza from the COMELEC for such detail. No law requires the submission to the
COMELEC of special orders reassigning or detailing employees within the prohibited period. What
is needed is "prior authority," the request for which and its approval may be in separate
documents or papers.