8/21/2015 G.R. No.

116418

TodayisFriday,August21,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.116418March7,1995

SALVADORC.FERNANDEZandANICIAM.DELIMA,petitioners,
vs.
HON.PATRICIAA.STO.TOMAS,Chairman,andHON.RAMONB.ERENETA,Commissioner,CivilService
Commission,respondents.

FELICIANO,J.:

InthisPetitionforCertiorari,ProhibitionandMandamuswithPrayerforaTemporaryRestrainingOrder,petitioners
Salvador C. Fernandez and Anicia M. de Lima assail the validity of Resolution No. 943710 of the Civil Service
Commission("Commission")andtheauthorityoftheCommissiontoissuethesame.

Petitioner Fernandez was serving as Director of the Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while
petitioner de Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the Central
Office of the Civil Service Commission in Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila. While petitioners were so serving,
ResolutionNo.943710signedbypublicrespondentsPatriciaA..Sto.TomasandRamonEreneta,Jr.,Chairman
andCommissioner,respectively,oftheCommission,wasissuedon7June1994.1ResolutionNo.943710needsto
bequotedinfull:

RESOLUTIONNO.943710

WHEREAS, Section 17 of Book V of Executive Order 292 provides that ". . . as an independent
constitutionalbody,theCommissionmayeffectchangesintheorganizationastheneedarises"

WHEREAS,theCommissionfindsitimperativetoeffectchangesintheorganizationtostreamlineits
operationsandimprovedeliveryofpublicservice

WHEREAS,theCommissionfindsitnecessarytoimmediatelyeffectchangesintheorganizationofthe
CentralOfficesinviewoftheneedtoimplementnewprogramsinlieuofthosefunctionswhichwere
transferredtotheRegionalOffices

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to effect the
followingchangesinitsorganization,specificallyintheCentralOffices:

1. The OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], OPIA [Office of Personnel Inspection and
Audit] and OPR [Office of Personnel Relations] are merged to form the Research and Development
Office(RDO).

2.TheOfficeforHumanResourceDevelopment(OHRD)isrenamedHumanResourceDevelopment
Office(HRDO).

3.Thefollowingfunctionsandthepersonnelassignedtotheunitperformingsaidfunctionsarehereby
transferredtoHRDO:

a.AdministrationoftheHonorandAwardsprogramunderOCSS

b.RegistrationandAccreditationofUnionsunderOPRand

c.AccreditationofAgenciestotakefinalactiononappointmentsunderOPIA.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 1/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
4. The Office for Central Personnel Records (OCPR) is renamed Management Information Office
(MIO).

5.TheInformationtechnologyfunctionsofOPMandthepersonnelassignedtotheunitaretransferred
toMIO.

6.ThefollowingfunctionsofOPMandthepersonnelassignedtotheunitperformingsaidfunctionsare
herebytransferredtotheOfficeoftheExecutiveDirector:

a.FinancialAuditandEvaluation

b.InternalManagementandImprovement

c.ResearchandStatisticsand

d.PlanningandProgramming.

7. The library service and its personnel under OCPR are transferred to the Central Administrative
Office.

8.ThebudgetallocatedforthevariousfunctionsshallbetransferredtotheOfficeswherethefunctions
aretransferred.Records,fixturesandequipmentthatgowiththefunctionsshallbemovedtowherethe
functionsaretransferred.

AnnexAcontainsthemanninglistforalltheoffices,excepttheOCES.

ThechangesintheorganizationandinoperationsshalltakeplacebeforeendofJuly1994.

DoneinQuezonCity,July07,1994.

(Signed)
PatriciaA.Sto.Tomas
Chairman

(Signed)Didnotparticipate
RamonP.Ereneta,Jr.,ThelmaP.Gaminde
CommissionerCommissioner

Attestedby:
(Signed)
CarmencitaGiselleB.Dayson
BoardSecretaryV2

During the general assembly of officers and employees of the Commission held in the morning of 28 July 1994,
ChairmanSto.Tomas,whenapprisedofobjectionsofpetitioners,expressedthedeterminationoftheCommission
toimplementResolutionNo.943710unlessrestrainedbyhigherauthority.

PetitionerstheninstitutedthisPetition.InaResolutiondated23August1994,theCourtrequiredpublicrespondents
to file a Comment on the Petition. On 21 September 1994, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a
TemporaryRestrainingOrder,allegingthatpetitionershadreceivedOfficeOrdersfromtheCommissionassigning
petitionerFernandeztoRegionVatLegaspiCityandpetitionerdeLimatoRegionIIIinSanFernando,Pampanga
and praying that public respondents be restrained from enforcing these Office Orders. The Court, in a Resolution
dated 27 September 1994, granted this Motion and issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for by
petitioners.

The Commission filed its own Comment, dated 12 September 1994, on the Petition and then moved to lift the
Temporary Restraining Order. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a separate Comment dated 28 November
1994,defendingthevalidityofResolutionNo.943710andurgingdismissalofthePetition.Petitionersfiledseparate
RepliestotheseComments.TheCommissioninturnfiledaRejoinder(denominated"Comment[on]theReply").

TheprincipalissuesraisedinthisPetitionarethefollowing:

(1)WhetherornottheCivilServiceCommissionhadlegalauthoritytoissueResolutionNo.943710to
the extent it merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], the OPIA [Office of
Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO
[ResearchandDevelopmentOffice]and

(2)WhetherornotResolutionNo.943710violatedpetitioners'constitutionalrighttosecurityoftenure.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 2/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
I.

TheRevisedAdministrativeCodeof1987(ExecutiveOrderNo.292dated25July1987)setsout,inBookV,TitleI,
SubtitleA,Chapter3,theinternalstructureandorganizationoftheCommissioninthefollowingterms:

Sec.16.OfficesintheCommissionTheCommissionshallhavethefollowingoffices:

(1)TheOfficeoftheExecutiveDirector...

(2)TheMeritSystemProtectionBoard...

(3)TheOfficeofLegalAffairs...

(4)TheOfficeofPlanningandManagement...

(5)TheCentralAdministrativeOffice...

(6)TheOfficeofCentralPersonnelRecords...

(7)TheOfficeofPositionClassificationand
Compensation...

(8)TheOfficeofRecruitment,Examinationand
Placement...

(9) The Office of Career Systems and Standards shall provide leadership and assistance in the
formulationandevaluationofpersonnelsystemsandstandardsrelativetoperformanceappraisal,merit
promotionandemployeeincentivebenefitsandawards.

(10)TheOfficeofHumanResourceDevelopment...

(11) The Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit shall develop policies, standards, rules and
regulationsfortheeffectiveconductofinspectionandauditofpersonnelandpersonnelmanagement
programs and the exercise of delegated authority provide technical and advisory services to Civil
ServiceRegionalOfficesandgovernmentagenciesintheimplementationoftheirpersonnelprograms
andevaluationsystems.

(12)TheOfficeofPersonnelRelationsshallprovideleadershipandassistanceinthedevelopmentand
implementation of policies, standards, rules and regulations governing corporate officials and
employeesintheareasofrecruitment,examination,placement,careerdevelopment,meritandawards
systems, position classification and compensation, performance appraisal, employee welfare and
benefits,disciplineandotheraspectsofpersonnelmanagementonthebasisofcomparableindustry
practices.

(13)TheOfficeoftheCorporateAffairs...

(14)TheOfficeofRetirementAdministration...

(15)TheRegionalandFieldOffices....(Emphasesintheoriginal)

ImmediatelyaftertheforegoinglistingofofficesoftheCommissionandtheirrespectivefunctions,the1987Revised
AdministrativeCodegoesontoprovideasfollows:

Sec.17.OrganizationalStructure.EachofficeoftheCommissionshallbeheadedbyaDirectorwith
at least one (1) Assistant Director, and may have such divisions as are necessary to carry out their
respectivefunctions.Asanindependentconstitutionalbody,theCommissionmayeffectchancesinthe
organizationastheneedarises.

xxxxxxxxx3

(Emphasissupplied)

ExaminationoftheforegoingstatutoryprovisionsrevealsthattheOCSS,OPIAandOPR,andaswelleachofthe
other Offices listed in Section 16 above, consist of aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a
groupingofSections.EachSection,DivisionandOfficecomprisesagroupofpositionswithintheagencycalledthe
Civil Service Commission, each group being entrusted with a more or less definable function or functions. These
functionsarerelatedtooneanother,eachofthembeingembracedbyacommonorgeneralsubjectmatter.Clearly,
eachOfficeisaninternaldepartmentororganizationalunitwithintheCommissionandthataccordingly,theOCSS,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 3/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
OPIAandOPR,aswellasalltheotherOfficeswithintheCommissionconstituteadministrativesubdivisionsofthe
CSC.Putalittledifferently,theseofficesrelatetotheinternalstructureoftheCommission.

What did Resolution No. 943710 of the Commission do? Examination of Resolution No. 943710 shows that
thereby the Commission rearranged some of the administrative units (i.e., Offices) within the Commission and,
amongotherthings,mergedthree(3)ofthem(OCSS,OPIAandOPR)toformanewgroupingcalledthe"Research
andDevelopmentOffice(RDO)."ThesameResolutionrenamedsomeoftheOfficesoftheCommission,e.g.,the
OfficeforHumanResourceDevelopment(OHRD)wasrenamedHumanResourceDevelopmentOffice(HRDO)the
Office for Central Personnel Records (OCPR) was renamed Management Information Office (MIO). The
Commission also reallocated certain functions moving some functions from one Office to another e.g., the
informationtechnologyfunctionofOPM(OfficeofPlanningandManagement)wastransferredtothenewlynamed
Management Information Office (MIO). This reallocation or reassignment of some functions carried with it the
transferofthebudgetearmarkedforsuchfunctiontotheOfficewherethefunctionwastransferred.Moreover,the
personnel,records,fixturesandequipmentthatweredevotedtothecarryingoutofsuchfunctionsweremovedto
theOfficestowherethefunctionsweretransferred.

TheobjectivessoughtbytheCommissioninenactingResolutionNo.943710weredescribedinthatResolutionin
broad terms as "effect[ing] changes in the organization to streamline [the Commission's] operations and improve
delivery of service." These changes in internal organization were rendered necessary by, on the one hand, the
decentralization and devolution of the Commission's functions effected by the creation of fourteen (14) Regional
Officesandninetyfive(95)FieldOfficesoftheCommissionthroughoutthecountry,totheendthattheCommission
anditsstaffmaybebroughtcloserphysicallytothegovernmentemployeesthattheyaremandatedtoserve.Inthe
past, its functions had been centralized in the Head Office of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila and Civil
Service employees all over the country were compelled to come to Manila for the carrying out of personnel
transactions.Upontheotherhand,thedispersalofthefunctionsoftheCommissiontotheRegionalOfficesandthe
FieldOfficesattachedtovariousgovernmentalagenciesthroughoutthecountrymakespossibletheimplementation
ofnewprogramsoftheCommissionatitsCentralOfficeinMetropolitanManila.

TheCommission'sOfficeOrderassigningpetitionerdeLimatotheCSCRegionalOfficeNo.3wasprecipitatedby
theincumbentRegionalDirectorfilinganapplicationforretirement,thusgeneratinganeedtofindareplacementfor
him.PetitionerdeLimawasbeingassignedtothatRegionalOfficewhiletheincumbentRegionalDirectorwasstill
there to facilitate her take over of the duties and functions of the incumbent Director. Petitioner de Lima's prior
experience as a labor lawyer was also a factor in her assignment to Regional Office No. 3 where public sector
unionshavebeenveryactive.PetitionerFernandez'sassignmenttotheCSCRegionalOfficeNo.5had,uponthe
otherhand,beennecessitatedbythefactthatthethenincumbentDirectorinRegionVwasunderinvestigationand
needed to be transferred immediately to the Central Office. Petitioner Fernandez was deemed the most likely
designeeforDirectorofRegionalOfficeNo.5consideringthatthefunctionspreviouslyassignedtohimhadbeen
substantiallydevolvedtotheRegionalOfficessuchthathisreassignmenttoaRegionalOfficewouldresultinthe
leastdisruptionoftheoperationsoftheCentralOffice.4

It thus appears to the Court that the Commission was moved by quite legitimate considerations of administrative
efficiencyandconvenienceinpromulgatingandimplementingitsResolutionNo.943710andinassigningpetitioner
SalvadorC.FernandeztotheRegionalOfficeoftheCommissioninRegionVinLegaspiCityandpetitionerAnicia
M.deLimatotheCommission'sRegionalOfficeinRegionIIIinSanFernando,Pampanga.Itisalsoclearto
the Court that the changes introduced and formalized through Resolution No. 943710 renaming of existing
Offices rearrangement of the groupings of Divisions and Sections composing particular Offices reallocation of
existingfunctions(andrelatedpersonnelbudget,etc.)amongtherearrangedOfficesarepreciselythekindof
internal changes which are referred to in Section 17 (Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3) of the 1987 Revised
AdministrativeCode),quotedabove,as"chancesintheorganization"oftheCommission.

Petitioners argue that Resolution No. 943710 effected the "abolition" of public offices, something which may be
doneonlybythesamelegislativeauthoritywhichhadcreatedthosepublicofficesinthefirstplace.

TheCourtisunable,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,toacceptthisargument.Theterm"publicoffice"isfrequently
usedtorefertotheright,authorityandduty,createdandconferredbylaw,bywhich,foragivenperiodeitherfixed
bylaworenduringatthepleasureofthecreatingpower,anindividualisinvestedwithsomeportionofthesovereign
functionsofgovernment,tobeexercisedbythatindividualforthebenefitofthepublic.5WeconsiderthatResolution
No.943710hasnotabolishedanypublicofficeasthattermisusedinthelawofpublicofficers.6Itisessentialtonotethat
none of the "changes in organization" introduced by Resolution No. 943710 carried with it or necessarily involved the
terminationoftherelationshipofpublicemploymentbetweentheCommissionandanyofitsofficersandemployees.Wefind
itverydifficulttosupposethatthe1987RevisedAdministrativeCodehavingmentionedfourteen(14)different"Offices"of
theCivilServiceCommission,meanttofreezethoseOfficesandtocastinconcrete,asitwere,theinternalorganizationof
thecommissionuntilitmightpleaseCongresstochangesuchinternalorganizationregardlessoftheeverchangingneedsof
theCivilServiceasawhole.Tothecontrary,thelegislativeauthorityhadexpresslyauthorizedtheCommissiontocarryout
"changesintheorganization,"as the need [for such changes] arises." 7Assuming, for purposes of argument merely, that
legislativeauthoritywasnecessarytocarryoutthekindsoffchangescontemplatedinResolutionNo.943710(andtheCourt

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 4/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
isnotsayingthatsuchauthorityisnecessary),suchlegislativeauthoritywasvalidlydelegatedtotheCommissionbySection
17earlierquoted.Thelegislativestandardstobeobservedandrespectedintheexerciseofsuchdelegatedauthorityareset
outnotonlyinSection17itself(i.e., "as the need arises"), but also in the Declaration of Policies found in Book V, Title I,
SubtitleA,Section1ofthe1987RevisedAdministrativeCodewhichrequiredtheCivilServiceCommission

asthecentralpersonnelagencyoftheGovernment[to]establisha
careerservice,adoptmeasurestopromoteefficiency[and]responsiveness...inthecivilservice
...andthatpersonnelfunctionsshallbedecentralized,delegatingthecorrespondingauthoritytothe
departments, offices and agencies where such functions can be effectively performed. (Emphasis
supplied)

II.

Weturntothesecondclaimofpetitionersthattheirrighttosecurityoftenurewasbreachedbytherespondentsin
promulgatingResolutionNo.943710andorderingpetitioners'assignmenttotheCommission'sRegionalOfficesin
RegionsIIIandV.Section2(3)ofArticleIX(B)ofthe1987Constitutiondeclaredthat"noofficeroremployeeofthe
CivilServiceshallberemovedorsuspendedexceptforcauseprovidedbylaw."Petitionersineffectcontendthat
theywereunlawfullyremovedfromtheirpositionsintheOPIAandOPRbytheimplementationofResolutionNo.94
3710andthattheycannot,withouttheirconsent,bemovedouttotheRegionalOfficesoftheCommission.

Wenote,firstly,thatappointmentstothestaffoftheCommissionarenotappointmentstoaspecifiedpublicoffice
butratherappointmentstoparticularpositionsorranks.Thus,apersonmaybeappointedtothepositionofDirector
IIIorDirectorIVortothepositionofAttorneyIVorAttorneyVortothepositionofRecordsOfficerIorRecords
Officer II and so forth. In the instant case, petitioners were each appointed to the position of Director IV, without
specificationofanyparticularofficeorstation.Thesameistruewithrespecttotheotherpersonsholdingthesame
positionorrankofDirectorIVoftheCommission.

Section 26(7), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code recognizes reassignment as a
management prerogative vested in the Commission and, for that matter, in any department or agency of
governmentembracedinthecivilservice:

Sec.26.PersonnelActions....

xxxxxxxxx

As used in this Title, any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service
shall be known as personnel action. Such action shall include appointment through certification,
promotion,transfer,reinstatement,reemployment,detail,reassignment,demotion,andseparation.All
personnel actions shall be in accordance with such rules, standards, and regulations as may be
promulgatedbytheCommission.

xxxxxxxxx

(7) Reassignment. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the
same agency, Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank status and
salary.(Emphasissupplied)

It follows that the reassignment of petitioners Fernandez and de Lima from their previous positions in OPIA and
OPR, respectively, to the Research and Development Office (RDO) in the Central Office of the Commission in
Metropolitan Manila and their subsequent assignment from the RDO to the Commission's Regional Offices in
RegionsVandIIIhadbeeneffectedwithexpressstatutoryauthorityanddidnotconstituteremovalswithoutlawful
cause.Italsofollowsthatsuchreassignmentdidnotinvolveanyviolationoftheconstitutionalrightofpetitionersto
securityoftenureconsideringthattheyretainedtheirpositionsofDirectorIVandwouldcontinuetoenjoythesame
rank,statusandsalaryattheirnewassignedstationswhichtheyhadenjoyedattheHeadOfficeoftheCommission
in Metropolitan Manila. Petitioners had not, in other words, acquired a vested right to serve at the Commission's
HeadOffice.

Secondly, the above conclusion is compelled not only by the statutory provisions relevant in the instant case, but
alsobyalonglineofcasesdecidedbythisCourtinrespectofdifferentagenciesorofficesofgovernment.

In one of the more recent of these cases, Department of Education Culture and Sports, etc., et al. v. Court of
Appeals,etal.,8thisCourtheldthatapersonwhohadbeenappointedas"SecondarySchoolPrincipalII"intheDivisionof
CitySchools,DistrictII,QuezonCity,NationalCapitalRegion,andwhohadbeenstationedasHighSchoolPrincipalinthe
CarlosAlbertHighSchoolinQuezonforanumberofyears,couldlawfullybereassignedortransferredtotheManuelRoxas
HighSchool,alsoinQuezonCity,withoutdemotioninrankordiminutionofsalry.ThisCourtheld:

TheaforequotedprovisionofRepublicActNo.4670particularlySection6thereofwhichprovidesthat
except for cause and in the exigencies of the service no teacher shall be transferred without his
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 5/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
consentfromonestationtoanother,findsnoapplicationinthecaseatbarasthisispredicatedupon
the theory that the teacher concerned is appointed not merely assigned to a particular station.
Thus:

Therulepursuedbyplaintiffonlygoessofaras
theappointedindicatesaspecification.Otherwise,theconstitutionallyordainedsecurityof
tenure cannot shield her. In appointments of this nature, this Court has consistently
rejectedtheofficer'sdemandtoremainevenaspublicservicedictatesthatatransfer
be made in a particular station. Judicial attitude toward transfers of this nature is
expressedinthefollowingstatementinIbaez,etal.vs.CommissiononElections,etal.
(G.R.No.
L26558,April27,196719SCRA1002[1967])

Thatsecurityoftenureisanessentialandconstitutionallyguaranteedfeature
of our Civil Service System, is not open to debate. The mantle of its
protectionextendsnotonlyagainstremovalswithoutcausebutalsoagainst
unconsented transfer which, as repeatedly enunciatEd, are tantamount to
removalswhicharewithintheambitofthefundamentalguarantee.However,
the availability of that security of tenure necessarily depends, in the first
instance, upon the nature of the appointment (Hojilla vs. Marino, 121 Phil.
280[1965].)Suchthattherulewhichproscribestransferswithoutconsentas
anathema to the security of tenure is predicated upon the theory that the
officerinvolvedisappointednotmerelyassignedtoaparticularstation
(Miclatv.Ganaden,etal.,108Phil.439[1960]Jarov.Hon.Valencia,etal.,
118Phil.728[1963]).[Brillantesv.Guevarra,27SCRA138(1969)]

TheappointmentofNavarroasprincipaldoesnotrefertoanyparticularstationorschool.Assuch,she
could be assigned to any station and she is not entitled to stay permanently at any specific school.
(Bongbong v. Parado, 57 SCRA 623) When she was assigned to the Carlos Albert High School, it
could not have been with the intention to let her stay in said school permanently. Otherwise, her
appointment would have so stated. Consequently, she may be assigned to any station or school in
Quezon City as the exigencies of public service require even without consent. As this Court ruled in
Brillantesv.Guevarra,27SCRA138,
143

Plaintiff's confident stride falters. She took too loose a view of the applicable
jurisprudence. Her refuge behind the mantle of security of tenure guaranteed by the
Constitution is not impenetrable. She proceeds upon the assumption that she occupies
her station in Sinalang Elementary School by appointment. But her first appointment as
Principalmerelyreadsthus:"YouareherebyappointedaPrincipal(ElementarySchool)in
theBureauofPublicSchools,DepartmentofEducation",withoutmentioningherstation.
ShecannotthereforeclaimsecurityoftenureasPrincipalofSinalangElementarySchool
oranyparticularstation.Shemaybeassignedtoanystationasexigencyofpublicservice
requires,evenwithoutherconsent.Shethushasnorightofchoice.9(Emphasissupplied
citationomitted)

IntheveryrecentcaseofFernando,etal.v.Hon.Sto.Tomas,etc.,et
a1.,10theCourtaddressedappointmentsofpetitionersas"MediatorsArbitersintheNationalCapitalRegion"indismissing
achallengeoncertioraritoresolutionsoftheCSCandordersoftheSecretaryofLabor.TheCourtsaid:

Petitioners were appointed as Mediator Arbiters in the National Capital Region. They were not,
however, appointed to a specific station or particular unit of the Department of Labor in the National
Capital Region (DOLENCR). Consequently, they can always be reassigned from one organizational
unittoanotherofthesameagencywhere,intheopinionofrespondentSecretary,theirservicesmay
be used more effectively. As such they can neither claim a vested right to the station to which they
were assigned nor to security of tenure thereat. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General,
petitioners' reassignment is not a transfer for they were not removed from their position as med
arbiters.Theywerenotgivennewappointmentstonewpositions.Itindubitablyfollows,therefore,that
MemorandumOrderNo.4orderingtheirreassignmentintheinterestoftheserviceislegallyinorder.
11(Emphasessupplied)

In Quisumbing v. Gumban, 12 the Court, dealing with an appointment in the Bureau of Public Schools of the
DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSports,ruledasfollows:

After a careful scrutiny of the records, it is to be underscored that the appointment of private
respondentYapissimplythatofaDistrictSupervisoroftheBureauofPublicSchoolswhichdoesnot
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 6/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
indicateaspecificstation(Rollo,p.13). Asuch,she could be assigned to any station andshe is no
entitled to stay permanently at any specific station (Bongbong v. Parado, 57 SCRA 623 [1974]
DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSportsv.CourtofAppeals[G.R.81032,March22,1990]citing
Brillantesv.Guevarra[27SCRA138[1969]).13

Again,inIbaezv.CommissiononElections,14theCourthadbeforeitpetitioners'appointmentsas"ElectionRegistrars
intheCommissionofElections,"withoutanyintimationtowhatcity,municipalityormunicipaldistricttheyhadbeenappointed
as such. 15The Court held that since petitioners "were not appointed to, and consequently not entitled to any security of
tenure or permanence in, any specific station," "on general principles, they [could] be transferred as the exigencies of the
service required," and that they had no right to complain against any change in assignment. The Court further held that
assignmenttoaparticularstationafterissuanceoftheappointmentwasnotnecessarytocompletesuchappointment:

....We cannot subscribe to the theory that an assignment to a particular station, in the light of the
terms of the appointments in question, was necessary to complete the said appointments. The
approvalthereofbytheCommissionerofCivilServicegavethoseappointmentsthestampoffinality.
WiththeviewthattherespondentCommissionthentookofitspowerinthepremisesandthedemand
of the mission it set out to accomplish with the appointments it extended, said appointments were
definitely meant to be complete as then issued. The subsequent assignment of the appointees
thereunderthatthesaidrespondentCommissionheldinreservetobeexercisedastheneedsofeach
localityjustifieddidnotinanywaydetractfromtheperfectionattainedbytheappointmentsbeforehand.
Andtherespectiveappointeeswereentitledonlytosuchsecurityoftenureastheappointmentpapers
concerned actually conferred not in that of any place to which they may have been subsequently
assigned. . . . As things stand, in default of any particular station stated in their respective
appointments, no security of tenure can be asserted by the petitioners on the basis of the mere
assignmentswhichweregiventothem. A contraryrulewillerasealtogetherthedemarcation linewe
have repeatedly drawn between appointment and assignment as two distinct concepts in the law of
publicofficers.16(Emphasessupplied)

Thepetitioner,inMiclatv.Ganaden, 17hadbeenappointedasa"WelfareOfficeIncharge,DivisionofUrban,Ruraland
Community Administration, Social Welfare Administration." She was assigned as Social Welfare Incharge of the Mountain
Province,byanofficeorderoftheAdministrator,SocialWelfareAdministration.Afteralittlemorethanayearpetitionerwas
assigned elsewhere and respondent Ganaden transferred to petitioner's first station in Baguio City. The Court ruled that
petitioner was not entitled to remain in her first station, In Jaro v. Hon. Valencia, et al., 18 petitioner Dr. Jaro had been
appointed "Physician in the Municipal Maternity and Charity Clinics, Bureau of Hospitals." He was first assigned to the
MunicipalMaternityandCharityClinicsinBatulati,Davao,andlatertothecorrespondingclinicinSaug,Davaoandthento
Catil,Davao.HewaslaterassignedtotheMunicipalityofPadada,alsoofDavaoProvince.Heresistedhislastassignment
andbroughtmandamus against the Secretary of Health to compel the latter to return him to his station in Catil, Davao as
MunicipalHealthOfficerthereof.TheCourt,applyingMiclatv.GanadendismissedthisPetitionholdingthathisappointment
notbeingtoanyspecificstationbutasaphysicianintheMunicipalMaternityandCharityClinics,BureauofHospitals,he
couldbetransferredorassignedtoanystationwhere,intheopinionoftheSecretaryofHealth,hisservicesmaybeutilized
moreeffectively.19

AlsonoteworthyisSta.Mariav.Lopez 20whichinvolvedtheappointmentofpetitionerSta.Mariaas"Dean,Collegeof
Education, University of the Philippines." Dean Sta. Maria was transferred by the President of the University of the
Philippines to the Office of the President, U.P., without demotion in rank or salary, thereby acceding to the demands of
studentactivistswhowereboycottingtheirclassesintheU.P.CollegeofEducation.DeanSta.Mariaassailedhistransferas
an illegal and unconstitutional removal from office. In upholding Dean Sta. Maria's claim, the Court, speaking through Mr.
JusticeSanchez,laiddowntheapplicabledoctrineinthefollowingterms:

4. Concededly, transfers there are which do not amount to removal. Some such transfer can be
effected without the need for charges being preferred, without trial or hering, and even without the
consentoftheemployee.

The clue to such transfers may be found in the "nature of the appointment." Where the appointment
does not indicate a specific station, an employee may be transferred or reassigned provided the
transferaffectsnosubstantialchangeintitle,rankandsalary.Thusonewhoisappointed"principalin
theBureauofPublicSchools"andisdesignatedtoheadapilotschoolmaybetransferredtothepost
ofprincipalofanotherschool.

Andtherulethatoutlawsunconsentedtransfersasanathematosecurityoftenureappliesonlytoan
officer who is appointed not merely assigned to a particular station. Such a rule does not
prescribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that empowers the head of an agency to
periodicallyreassigntheemployeesandofficersinordertoimprovetheserviceoftheagency.Theuse
ofapprovedtechniquesormethodsinpersonnelmanagementtoharnesstheabilitiesofemployeesto
promoteoptimumpublicservicecannotbeobjectedto....

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 7/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
5.ThenextpointofinquiryiswhetherornotAdministrativeOrder77wouldstandthetestofvalidityvis
avistheprinciplesjustenunciated.

xxxxxxxxx

Tobestressedatthispoint,however,isthattheappointmentofSta.Mariaisthatof"Dean,Collegeof
Education,UniversityofthePhilippines."Heisnotmerelyadean"intheuniversity."Hisappointmentis
to a specific position and, more importantly, to a specific station. 21 (Citations omitted emphases
supplied)

ForalltheforegoingweconcludethatthereassignmentofpetitionersFernandezanddeLimafromtheirstationsin
the OPIA and OPR, respectively, to the Research Development Office (RDO) and from the RDO to the
CommissionsRegionalOfficesinRegionsVandIII,respectively,withouttheirconsent,didnotconstituteaviolation
oftheirconstitutionalrighttosecurityoftenure.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionforCertiorari,ProhibitionandMandamuswithPrayerforWritofPreliminaryInjunctionor
TemporaryRestrainingOrderisherebyDISMISSED.TheTemporaryRestrainingOrderissuedbythisCourton27
September1994isherebyLIFTED.Costsagainstpetitioners.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
MendozaandFrancisco,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1CommissionerThelmaP.GamindedidnotparticipateintheadoptionofthisResolution.

2Rollo,pp.2729.

3BookV,TittleI,SubtitleA,Chapter3,1987RevisedAdministrativeCode.

4PleaseseeMotiontoLiftTemporaryRestrainingOrderfiledbypublicrespondents,Rollo,pp.7577.

5Apparivs.CourtofAppeals,127SCRA231(1984)Oliverosv.Villaluz,57SCRA163(1974)
Fernandezvs.Ledesma,117Phil.630(1963)Albavs.Evangelista,100Phil.683(1957).

6Thedualreferenceoftheterm"office"or"publicoffice"isbroughtoutinthedefinitionoftheterm
foundinSection2(9),IntroductoryProvisionsoftheRevisedAdministrativeCodeof1987:

Officerefers,withintheframeworkofgovernmentalorganization,toanymajorfunctional
unitofadepartmentorbureauincludingregionaloffices.Itmayalsorefertoanyposition
heldoroccupiedbyindividualpersons,whosefunctionsaredefinedbylaworregulation.
(Emphasissupplied)

7TheCivilServiceCommissionisnottheonlyagencyofgovernmentthathasbeenexpresslyvested
withthisauthoritytoeffectchangesininternalorganization.Comparableauthorityhasbeenlodgedin,
e.g.,theCommissiononElectionsandtheOfficeofthePresident.InrespectofComelec,Section13,
Chapter3,SubtitleC,TitleI,BookV,1987RevisedAdministrativeCodereadsasfollows:

TheCommissionmaymakechangesinthecomposition,distribution,andassignmentoffieldoffices,
aswellitspersonnel,whenevertheexigenciesoftheserviceandtheinterestoffree,orderly,honest,
peaceful,andcredibleelectionsorequire:Provided,Thatsuchchangesshallbeeffectiveand
enforceableonlyforthedurationoftheelectionperiodconcernedandshallnotconstituteademotion,
eitherinrankorsalary,norresultinachangeofstatusandProvidedfurtherthatthereshallbeno
changesinthecomposition,distribution,orassignmentwithinthirtydaysbeforetheelection,exceptfor
cause,andafterduenoticeandhearing,andthatinnocaseshallaregionalorassistantregional
directorbeassignedtoaregion,provincialelectionsupervisortoaprovince,ormunicipality,wherehe
and/orhisspousearerelatedtoanycandidatewithinthefourthcivildegreeorconsanguinityoraffinity
asthecasemaybe.(Section13,Chapter3,SubtitleC,Title1,BookV,RevisedAdministrativeCodeof
1987Emphasissupplied)

WithrespecttotheOfficeofthePresident,Section31,Chapter10,TitleIII,BookIII,Revised
AdministrativeCodeof1987,vestedthePresidentwiththefollowingauthority:

ThePresidentsubjecttothepolicyintheExecutiveOfficeandinordertoachievesimplicity,economy,
andefficiency,shallhavecontinuingauthoritytoreorganizetheadministrativestructureoftheOfficeof
thePresident.Forthispurpose,hemaytakeanyofthefollowingactions:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 8/9
8/21/2015 G.R. No. 116418
(1)RestructuretheinternalorganizationoftheOfficeofthePresidentProper,includingtheimmediate
offices,thePresidentialSpecialAssistantAdviserSystemandtheCommonStaffSupportSystem,by
abolishing,consolidating,ormergingunitsthereof,ortransferringfunctionsfromoneunittoanother

xxxxxxxxx

(Section31,Chapter10,Title3,BookIIIRevisedAdministrativeCodeof1987Emphasis
supplied)

8183SCRA555(1990).

9183SCRAat561562.

10234SCRA546(1994).

11234SCRAat553.

12193SCRA520(1991).

13193SCRAat523.SeealsoBrillantesv.Guevarra,27SCRA138(1969),wherepetitionerBrillantes
hadanappointmentas(a)Principal,ElementarySchool,intheBureauofPublicSchoolsDepartment
ofEducationandwheretheCourtreachedthesameconclusion.

1419SCRA1002(1967).

15Forothercasesinvolvingelectionregistrarsandapplyingthesamerule,seeBraganzav.
CommissiononElections,20SCRA1023(1967)Real,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,etal.,21
SCRA331(1967).

1619SCRAat10121013.

17108Phil.439(1960).

18118Phil.728(1963).

19SeealsoBongbongv.Paradeetal.,57SCRA623(1974)whichinvolvedpetitioner'sappointment
as"ruralhealthphysicianintheBureauofRuralHealthUnitsProjects."

2031SCRA637(1970).

2131SCRAat652654.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_116418_1995.html 9/9