HON. RICARDO T. GLORIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND DIRECTOR NILO L. ROSAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, PETITIONERS, …

Gloria versus Rosas

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and Director Nilo L. Rosas of its National Capital Region, against a Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City who was reassigned to the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology. The private respondent challenged the reassignment as a violation of his security of tenure, and the Court of Appeals agreed with him. The case matters because it fixes the test for when a reassignment of a civil servant crosses the line into a constructive removal: an indefinite transfer, with no period fixed and no showing of mere temporariness, is unconstitutional. It also disposes of two procedural objections that reappear in administrative-law questions, namely presidential immunity from suit and the proper reach of a petition for prohibition.

Procedural History

The private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, questioning his reassignment. The Court of Appeals initially denied the restraining order, then set that denial aside and restrained the petitioners from implementing the reassignment. It later enjoined implementation and set the case for hearing on a writ of preliminary injunction. On the merits, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision declaring the reassignment violative of the private respondent's right to security of tenure and prohibiting the petitioners from implementing it. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assigning as errors the supposed circumvention of presidential immunity from suit and a decision of a question of substance not in accord with law and jurisprudence.

Facts

On June 29, 1989, the private respondent was appointed Schools Division Superintendent of the Division of City Schools of Quezon City by then President Corazon C. Aquino. He served in that position for several years.

On October 10, 1994, Secretary Gloria recommended to the President that the private respondent be reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology, to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of its superintendent, Mr. Bannaoag F. Lauro, on June 17, 1994. The recommendation stated that the private respondent, an expert in vocational and technical education, would best fit the qualifications and experience required by that position. The President approved the recommendation on October 12, 1994, and the approved recommendation was transmitted to Director Rosas for implementation. On October 14, 1994, Director Rosas informed the private respondent of his reassignment, effective October 17, 1994.

The private respondent asked Secretary Gloria to reconsider, but the request was denied. He prepared a letter to the President dated October 18, 1994, furnished a copy to the Department, but changed his mind and never filed it with the Office of the President. On October 19, 1994, he filed his petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for prohibition improperly attacks an act of the President in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit.
• Whether or not the petition for prohibition is the proper remedy against the acts of the petitioners.
• Whether or not the reassignment of the private respondent from Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City to Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology violates his security of tenure.

Applicable Provisions

The decision anchors the protection on the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure in the civil service, which the Court quotes from its earlier ruling in Bentain versus Court of Appeals:

Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of our civil service.

This guarantee is the measure against which the reassignment is tested, because an unconsented transfer that amounts to an illegal removal falls within its protection.

The same ruling states the rule on transfers:

While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation.

This passage supplies the dividing line between a valid temporary assignment and a constructive removal.

And the consequence of crossing that line is stated thus:

Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service.

This is the provision the reassignment in this case was held to violate.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention is untenable for the simple reason that the petition is directed against the petitioners and not against the President. The questioned acts are those of the petitioners, not of the President. The Court added that presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion, or where the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court found the objection barren of merit. The private respondent clearly averred that the petitioners acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reassigning him in a way that infringed his security of tenure. The petitioners themselves admitted that their questioned act was a ministerial duty, such that they could be charged with insubordination if they did not comply with the presidential order. The Court reiterated that where an administrative department acts with grave abuse of discretion, equivalent to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, or exercises its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, there is justification for the courts to set aside the administrative determination.

On the third and pivotal issue, the Court upheld the finding of the Court of Appeals that the reassignment appears to be indefinite. That inference was drawn from the memorandum of Secretary Gloria stating that the reassignment would best fit the private respondent's qualifications and experience as an expert in vocational and technical education. The Court reasoned that the reassignment was therefore more than temporary, since the private respondent was described as fit for the reassigned job. Nothing in the memorandum showed that the reassignment was temporary or would last only until a permanent replacement was found, as no period was specified or fixed, which evinced an intention to reassign him with no definite period or duration. Such a feature is violative of his security of tenure. Applying Bentain, the Court held that a reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status and salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service. Having found the reassignment violative of security of tenure, the Court held that the order for reassignment cannot be countenanced.

Doctrine

Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of the civil service, and its mantle extends not only to employees removed without cause but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal removals. A temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, but it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward removal, a scheme to lure the employee away from his permanent position, designed to indirectly terminate his service, or meant to force his resignation. A reassignment that is indefinite, with no period fixed and no indication of mere temporariness, and that results in a reduction in rank, status and salary, is in effect a constructive removal from the service. Presidential immunity from suit does not bar a petition directed against the acts of subordinate officials, and presidential decisions may be questioned where there is grave abuse of discretion or action without or in excess of jurisdiction. Prohibition lies where an administrative department acts with grave abuse of discretion, equivalent to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, or in an arbitrary or despotic manner.

Disposition

The petition was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, so the private respondent prevailed and the reassignment to the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology could not be implemented.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an indefinite reassignment which reduces rank, status and salary is a constructive removal from the service. Examiners use this case on security of tenure in the civil service, on the validity of unconsented transfers, and on the limits of presidential immunity from suit.