Constitutional Law 1 Chapter 10: The Executive Department, and Chapter 11: Powers of the President T !"D D!#!$!

!%& [G.R. No. 119903. August 15, 2000] HON. RICARDO T. GLORIA, in his c ! cit" s #$CR$TAR%, AND DIR$CTOR NILO L. RO#A# in his c ! cit" s R$GIONAL DIR$CTOR, D$&ART'$NT O( $D)CATION, C)LT)R$ AND #&ORT#, petitioners, vs. HON. CO)RT O( A&&$AL# AND DR. *I$N+$NIDO A. ICA#IANO, respondents. D$CI#ION &)RI#I'A, J., This is a petition for review on certiorari under "ule '( of the "ules of Court )rou*ht )+ $ecretar+ and the Director for the &ational Capital "e*ion of the Department of Education, Culture and $ports ,DEC$-, to .uestion the decision 1/10 of the Court of 1ppeals in C1234"4 $P &o4 5((0(4 The Court of 1ppeals found the facts as follows: 6%n 7une 89, 19:9, petitioner /private respondent herein0 was appointed $chools Division $uperintendent, Division of Cit+ $chools, ;ue<on Cit+, )+ the then President Cora<on C4 1.uino4 %n %cto)er 10, 199', respondent $ecretar+ 3loria recommended to the President of the Philippines that the petitioner )e reassi*ned as $uperintendent of the =!$T /=ari>ina !nstitute of $cience and Technolo*+0, to fill up the vacuum created )+ the retirement of its $uperintendent, =r4 ?annaoa* @4 Lauro, on 7une 1A, 199'4 %n %cto)er 18, 199', the President approved the recommendation of $ecretar+ 3loria4 %n %cto)er 15, 199', a cop+ of the recommendation for petitionerBs reassi*nment, as approved )+ the President, was transmitted )+ $ecretar+ 3loria to Director "osas for implementation4 %n %cto)er 1', 199', Director "osas, informed the petitioner of his reassi*nment, effective %cto)er 1A, 199'4 Petitioner re.uested respondent $ecretar+ 3loria to reconsider the reassi*nment, )ut the latter denied the re.uest4 The petitioner prepared a letter dated %cto)er 1:, 199' to the President of the Philippines, as>in* for a reconsideration of his reassi*nment, and furnished a cop+ of the same to the DEC$4 owever, he su)se.uentl+ chan*ed his mind and refrained from filin* the letter with the %ffice of President4 %n %cto)er 19, 199', the petitioner filed the instant petition468/80 %n %cto)er 8C, 199', the Court of 1ppeals denied private respondentBs pra+er for the issuance of a Temporar+ "estrainin* %rder ,T"%-45/50 %n &ovem)er 88, 199', it set aside its earlier resolution den+in* the pra+er for the issuance of a T"%D and thereafter, restrained the petitioners 6from implementin* the re2assi*nment of the petitioner /private respondent herein0 from incum)ent $chools Division $uperintendent of
1[1]

;ue<on Cit+ to #ocational $chools $uperintendent of the =ari>ina !nstitute of $cience and Technolo*+46'/'0 %n Decem)er 81, 199', the Court of 1ppeals issued another resolution settin* the hearin* of the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ inEunction and enEoinin* the petitioners from implementin* the reassi*nment of the private respondent4 %n =arch 8:, 199(, it issued its assailed decisionD holdin* as follows: 6F E"E@%"E, for lac> of a period or an+ indication that it is onl+ temporar+, the reassi*nment of the petitioner from $chools Division $uperintendent, Division of Cit+ $chools, ;ue<on Cit+, to #ocational $chools $uperintendent of the =ari>ina !nstitute of $cience and Technolo*+ pursuant to the =emorandum of $ecretar+ "icardo T4 3loria to the President of the Philippines dated 10 %cto)er 199', is here)+ declared to )e violative of petitionerBs ri*ht to securit+ of tenure, and the respondents are here)+ prohi)ited from implementin* the same4 $% %"DE"ED46(/(0 Petitioners are now )efore the Court see>in* relief from the decision of the appellate court, contendin* that: I "E$P%&DE&T C%G"T %@ 1PPE1L$ 1$ 1LL%FED !T$EL@ T% ?E !&$T"G=E&T1L !& P"!#1TE "E$P%&DE&TB$ C!"CG=#E&T!%& %@ T E P"E$!DE&T!1L !==G&!TH @"%= $G!T ?H 3!#!&3 DGE C%G"$E 1&D 3"1&T!&3 "EL!E@$ P"1HED @%" !& 1 $G!T PG"P%"TEDLH @!LED 131!&$T PET!T!%&E"$ ?GT 1CTG1LLH ;GE$T!%&!&3 1& 1CT %@ T E P"E$!DE&T4 II "E$P%&DE&T C%G"T %@ 1PPE1L$ 1$ DEC!DED 1 ;GE$T!%& %@ $G?$T1&CE !& 1 F1H &%T !& 1CC%"D F!T L1F %" 1PPL!C1?LE DEC!$!%&$ %@ T E $GP"E=E C%G"T4C
/C0

The pivotal issue for resolution here is whether the reassi*nment of private respondent from $chool Division $uperintendent of ;ue<on Cit+ to #ocational $chool $uperintendent of =!$T is violative of his securit+ of tenureI Petitioners maintain that there is no violation of securit+ of tenure involved4 Private respondent maintains otherwise4 !n ta>in* favora)le action on private respondentBs petition for prohi)ition, the Court of 1ppeals ratiocinated: 6&otwithstandin* the protestations of counsel for the respondents, the reassi*nment of the petitioner to =!$T appears to )e indefinite4 &o period is fixed4 &o o)Eective or purpose, from which the temporariness of the assi*nment ma+ )e inferred, is set4 !n fact, the recommendation of respondent $ecretar+ 3loria to the President that the position of superintendent of =!$T Jwill )est fit his ,petitionerBs- .ualifications and experience4B ,Exh4 JC28B- implies that the proposed reassi*nment will )e indefinite46A/A0 Petitioners theori<e that the present petition for prohi)ition is improper )ecause the same attac>s an act of the President, in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunit+ from suit4
%[%] -[-]

Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofilena and concurred by Associate Justices Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. (Chair an! and "odardo A. Jacinto. #[#] Rollo, $$. %&'%%. &[&] (esolution) Rollo, $$. *1'*#.

(esolution) Rollo, $. +,. Rollo, $. %.. *[*] Rollo, $. #,. +[+] Rollo, $. %..

1-Pa*e

Constitutional Law 1 Chapter 10: The Executive Department, and Chapter 11: Powers of the President PetitionersB contention is untena)le for the simple reason that the petition is directed a*ainst petitioners and not a*ainst the President4 The .uestioned acts are those of petitioners and not of the President4 @urthermore, presidential decisions ma+ )e .uestioned )efore the courts where there is *rave a)use of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of Eurisdiction4 :/:0 PetitionersB su)mission that the petition of private respondent with the Court of 1ppeals is improper for failin* to show that petitioners constituted themselves into a 6court6 conductin* a 6proceedin*6 and for failin* to show that an+ of the petitioners acted )e+ond their Eurisdiction in the exercise of their Eudicial or ministerial functions, is )arren of merit4 Private respondent has clearl+ averred that the petitioners acted with *rave a)use of discretion amountin* to lac> of Eurisdiction andKor excess of Eurisdiction in reassi*nin* the private respondent in a wa+ that infrin*ed upon his securit+ of tenure4 1nd petitioners themselves admitted that their .uestioned act constituted a ministerial dut+, such that the+ could )e su)Eect to char*es of insu)ordination if the+ did not compl+ with the presidential order4 Fhat is more, where an administrative department acts with *rave a)use of discretion, which is e.uivalent to a capricious and whimsical exercise of Eud*ment, or where the power is exercised in an ar)itrar+ or despotic manner, there is a Eustification for the courts to set aside the administrative determination thus reached4 9/90 Petitioners contend that the doctrine enunciated in Bentain vs. Court of Appeals10/100 22 that 6a reassi*nment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in ran>, status and salar+, is in effect, a constructive removal from the service6 22 does not appl+ in the present case for the reassi*nment in .uestion was merel+ temporar+, lastin* onl+ until the appointment of a new #ocational $chool $uperintendent of =!$T4 1fter a careful stud+, the Court upholds the findin* of the respondent court that the reassi*nment of petitioner to =!$T 6appears to )e indefinite64 The same can )e inferred from the =emorandum11/110 of $ecretar+ 3loria for President @idel #4 "amos to the effect that the reassi*nment of private respondent will 6)est fit his .ualifications and experience6 )ein* 6an expert in vocational and technical education46 !t can thus )e *leaned that su)Eect reassi*nment is more than temporar+ as the private respondent has )een descri)ed as fit for the ,reassi*ned- Eo), )ein* an expert in the field4 ?esides, there is nothin* in the said =emorandum to show that the reassi*nment of private respondent is temporar+ or would onl+ last until a permanent replacement is found as no period is specified or fixedD which fact evinces an intention on the part of petitioners to reassi*n private respondent with no definite period or duration4 $uch feature of the reassi*nment in .uestion is definitel+ violative of the securit+ of tenure of the private respondent4 1s held in Bentain: 6$ecurit+ of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionall+ *uaranteed feature of our civil service4 The mantle of its protection extends not onl+ to emplo+ees removed without cause )ut also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to ille*al removals ,Department of Education, Culture and $ports vs4 Court of 1ppeals, 1:5 $C"1 (((D !)ane< vs4 C%=ELEC, 19 $C"1 1008D ?rillantes vs4 3uevarra, 8A $C"1 15:-4 Fhile a temporar+ transfer or assi*nment of personnel is permissi)le even without the emplo+eeBs prior consent, it cannot )e done when the transfer is a preliminar+ step toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him awa+
/[/] .[.]

from his permanent position, or desi*ned to indirectl+ terminate his service, or force his resi*nation4 $uch a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safe*uards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil $ervice ,$ta4 =aria vs4 Lope<, 51 $C"1 C(1D 3arcia vs4 LeEano, 109 Phil4 11C-4618/180 avin* found the reassi*nment of private respondent to the =!$T to )e violative of his securit+ of tenure, the order for his reassi*nment to the =!$T cannot )e countenanced4 .H$R$(OR$, the petition is here)+ DE&!ED, and the Decision of the Court of 1ppeals in C1234"4 $P &o4 5((0( 1@@!"=ED4 &o pronouncement as to costs4 #O ORD$R$D. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga !e"es, ##., concur4

0edrana vs. 1ffice of the President, 1// 2C(A /1/, /#%. 3anco 4ili$ino 2a5in6s 7 0ort6a6e 3an8 vs. 0onetary 3oard, Central 3an8 of the Phili$$ines, #,% 2C(A +*+, +.,' +.1 citin69 Li , 2r. vs. 2ecretary of A6riculture and Natural (esources, &% 2C(A +-1. 1,[1,] #,. 2C(A *%%, *%.. 11[11] Rollo, $. -1.

1#[1#]

3entain vs. Court of A$$eals, supra $$. *%/'*%..

8-Pa*e