HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND JACINTO T. MARCELO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 76,…

On March 22, 1995, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, then Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 8-95.^[1] Pursuant thereto,

NAME		FROM		TO
ESTEBAN P. BATTUNG		Regional Director Revenue Region No. 14 Tacloban City		Regional Director Revenue Region No. 3 Tuguegarao
PERCIVAL T. SALAZAR		Asst. Regional Director Revenue Region No. 7 Quezon City		Regional Director Revenue Region No. 14 Tacloban City
RENATO L. MANALILI		Assistant Region Director Revenue Region No. 5 Valenzuela		Asst. Regional Director Revenue Region No. 7 Quezon City
TEOFISTA A. SAPITULA		Assistant Regional Director Revenue Regulation No. 9 San Pablo City		Assistant Regional Director Revenue Region No. 5 Valenzuela
LUCIANO S. MALAPITAN		Assistant Regional Director Revenue Region No. 2 Cordillera Administrative Region		Assistant Regional Director Revenue Region No. 9 San Pablo City
PRISCILA B. PAGARIGAN		Asst. Regional Director Revenue No. 16 Cagayan De Oro City		Asst. Regional Director Revenue Reg. No. 2 Cordillera Administrative Region
DANILO A. DUNCANO		Revenue District Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 80 Mandaue City		OIC-Asst. Regional Director Revenue Region No. 16 Cagayan de Oro City
EDILBERTO I. CAUSON		Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 47 East Makati		Revenue District Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 80 Mandaue City
GERARDO R. FLORENDO		Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Officer No. 39 South Quezon City		Revenue District officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 98 Cagayan de Oro City
GRAVE EVELYN A. LACERNA		Executive Assistant Office of the Commissioner National Office		Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 39 South Quezon City
ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ		Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 34 Paco – Pandacan		Asst. Division Chief Collection Programs Div. National Office
JUANITO T. MARCELO		Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 21 San Fernando, Pampanga		Asst. Rev. District Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 34 Paco-Pandacan
HORACIO D. ETORMA		Technical Assistant Office of DCIR Rualo		Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 50 South Makati
EDILBERTO C. RADAZA		Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 103 Butuan City		Revenue District Officer Rev. Dist. Office No. 106 Tandag, Surigao del Sur”

private respondent Estrella V. Martinez, along with others, was reassigned
from Assistant Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 34
– Paco – Pandacan – San Andres -Sta. Ana area – to Assistant Division Chief,
Collection Programs Division, National Office in Quezon City, and assigned in
her place, as Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34 was Jacinto T.
Marcelo, erroneously referred to as Juanito T. Marcelo in RTAO 8-95.

On account of such reassignment, private respondent filed on April 4, 1995,
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, a petition for injunction docketed
as Civil Case No. 95-23498 with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, to restrain petitioner Marcelo from
assuming the post of Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34.

In that petition, private respondent alleged that prior to the questioned
RTAO 8-95, the retiring Revenue Officer of RDO No. 34, Jose T. Jacalan, wrote
the BIR Commissioner endorsing and strongly recommending private respondents’
promotion as Revenue Officer of RDO 34.^[2] Notwithstanding such recommendation,
another BIR employee Isidro Tecson Jr., was assigned by the Commissioner in
place of Jose T. Jacalan. This prompted private respondent to file with the
Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance a complaint for violation of
Merit Promotion Plan under BIR Memorandum Order No. 39-93. On July 10, 1995 the
Grievance Committee issued a resolution enjoining the BIR to strictly adhere to
the established and CSC-approved merit promotion plan in making the appointment
to create equal opportunities for advancement to all qualified and competent
employees of the BIR. According to private respondent, instead of complying with
the said resolution, petitioner Chato, in a clear act of spite, whim, and
vindictiveness against a subordinate employee who dared to question petitioners’
unlawful acts, issued the now questioned RTAO 8-95. Private respondent now
claims that the questioned RTAO 8-95, is tantamount to a demotion since the
position she was transferred to – Assistant Division Chief, Collections Program
Division Chief, National Office – does not involve assessment and is totally
alien to the past experience and skills of private respondent as an Assistant
Revenue District Officer of RDO 34. Besides private respondent asserts that she
will be dislocated since she has no experience in the collection service, in
violation of Executive Order No. 132 dated October 26, 1993 which prohibits the
transfer of personnel resulting in dislocation.

Acting on the petition, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order
in an Order dated April 28, 1995. Thereafter, in an Order dated May 18, 1995,
respondent Judge granted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the
implementation of RTAO 8-95. The full text of the Order is quoted as follows:

“For resolution is the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction contained in the instant verified petition as well as the comment
thereon filed by defendants [herein petitioners], through counsel, on May 5,
1995, and the reply with prayer to restore parties to the status quo filed by
plaintiff [herein private respondent], through counsel, on May 17, 1995.

“Plaintiff alleges that a certain Isidro Tecson Jr. was designated as Revenue
District Officer of RDO 34 by herein defendant [petitioner] Commissioner despite
the recommendation of the retiring RDO of RDO 34, Jose T. Jacalan, for plaintiff
[Martinez] to be assigned in his place; that on the belief that she had superior
qualifications than Tecson and being the next-in-rank, she lodged a complaint
with the Selection Board of the BIR; that considering the length of time during
which defendant Commissioner failed to act on her complaint, she subsequently
filed a protest with the Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance which
resolved that herein defendant Commissioner appoint a permanent RDO for RDO 34
and adhere to the established and CSC approved merit promotion plan in making
the appointment; that instead of complying with said resolution, herein
defendant Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 wherein
plaintiff [Martinez] was assigned from Assistant RDO of RDO 34 to Assistant
Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office and assigning in
her place as Assistant RDO of RDO 34 (Paco – Pandacan – Sta. Ana – San Andres)
defendant Jacinto Marcelo. She argues that her reassignment puts her in a
freezer position tantamount to a demotion and dislocation; that defendant
Commissioner’s act of issuing the questioned Revenue Travel Assignment Order No.
8-95 was made in clear bad faith intended to harass her in violation of Revenue
Memorandum Order No. 32-93; and that this court has jurisdiction to issue a
preliminary injunction in this case.

“As prayed for, this Court in its Order dated April 28, 1995, issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining defendant Commissioner or her subordinates
from enforcing Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 as it pertains to
plaintiff [Martinez] and defendant Jacinto Marcelo.

“Defendants, in their comment, qualified the material allegations in the
petition arguing among others that plaintiff brought her complaint to the
Grievance Committee of the DOF without waiting for the BIR’s final action on her
complaint pending receipt of Tecson’s scholastic records from the Far Eastern
University; that the (sic) February 9, 1995, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
issued Resolution No. 95-0785 dismissing plaintiff’s protest against Tecson’s
designation; that in view of the said CSC’s ruling, defendant Commissioner found
no basis for taking further action on the resolution of the Grievance Committee
of the Department of Finance; that it was in pursuance of her authority to
transfer and assign BIR personnel in the exigency of the service that defendant
Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95; that Tecson’s
designation was not violative of the BIR’s merit promotion plan as said Tecson
was merely designated and not issued an appointment; that defendant
Commissioner’s exercise of her prerogative to assign/reassign personnel to meet
exigencies of the service is beyond judicial interference.

“After weighing the arguments raised by the parties in support of their
respective claims, this Court determines that the grounds set forth in Rule 58,
Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present, hence, the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction is warranted under the premises.

“It appears that plaintiff [Martinez] was reassigned by defendant
Commissioner by virtue of Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 after she
filed a complaint with the Selection Board of the BIR over the designation of
one Isidro Tecson, Jr. as Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office
No. 34 (Paco – Pandacan – San Andres – Sta. Ana), a position which plaintiff
[Martinez] sought to be appointed to. The issue of whether or not said Revenue
Travel Assignment Order is valid and legal would still be threshed out during
the trial on the merits. Thus, unless defendant Commissioner or her subordinates
are enjoined from implementing Revenue Travel Assignment No. 8-95 as it pertains
to plaintiff [Martinez] and defendant Marcelo, plaintiff [Martinez] would
thereby suffer great and irreparable injury if it is determined that her
assignment is irregular and illegal.

“This Court resolves to grant the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00 which bond
shall answer for damages which may be sustained by reason of the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction, if it turns out that the plaintiff [Martinez] is
not entitled thereto.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

Hence, on June 28, 1995, petitioners filed the present petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the above Order.

Petitioners argue that the reassignment of revenue district officers was made
pursuant to Executive Order No. 132 for the purpose of improving revenue
collection. The writ hampers the serious efforts of the Government to
re-organize the BIR to meet the urgent need for increased and efficient tax
collection to support the economic development and growth of the Philippines, as
embodied in Executive Order No. 132 (October 26, 1993). Besides, private
respondent allegedly failed to show any legal or vested right to her position as
Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 since she was merely assigned
thereto and neither did private respondent show any right to be exempted from
the reorganization. Private respondent holds the appointment of Chief Revenue
Officer II and, whether she be assigned to another revenue district, revenue
region or to the national office, she remains Chief Revenue Officer II, the
position she was appointed to. Thus, there was no demotion in the reassignment
since there was no reduction in duties, responsibilities, status, rank or
salary.

On July 31, 1995, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
enjoining the respondents from implementing the questioned Order of May 18, 1995
issued by the respondent court in Civil Case No. Q-95-23498. Meanwhile, on
August 11, 1995, private respondent Martinez wrote a letter to the Regional
Director of Revenue Region No. 6, Manila as follows:

“Please be informed that the undersigned through her counsel received a copy
of the Supreme Court Resolution dated July 31, 1995 on August 1, 1995. Court
Orders takes effect fifteen (15) days after issuance should there be no motion
for reconsideration filed of such order.

“Since the fifteen (15) day period has not yet elapsed, the said Supreme
Court Resolution is not yet final and executory. Please be informed likewise
that within the said fifteen day period, I will be taking the appropriate legal
remedies available to me by law.”^[4]

Thereupon, private respondent Martinez went on leave of absence on August 21,
1995.

By reason of petitioner’s failure to comply with RTAO 8-95, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) rendered a Decision dated May 9, 1996 suspending private
respondent Martinez for one (1) month on the ground of gross insubordination in
accordance with Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations. It was likewise ruled that private respondent need not to go on
leave of absence because she is ipso facto considered on leave of absence
upon her failure to comply within ten (10) days from the receipt of RTAO 8-95,
citing BIR Field Circular No. V-75 dated October 21, 1953.

Because of the suspension, on July 9, 1996, private respondent filed a motion
to cite Chato in contempt of Court alleging therein that the suspension order
issued by petitioner Chato pre-empts any decision of this Court on the validity
and legality of RTAO 8-95. On October 16, 1996, this motion of private
respondent to cite petitioner Chato in contempt of court was denied for lack of
merit,^[5] which denial became final after
the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Martinez was denied by this
Court on January 13, 1997. ^[6]

In the third urgent motion for early resolution filed by private respondent
on November 10, 1998, she claims that she was compelled to use her accumulated
leave credits amounting to over 350 working days in order to resist the order of
petitioner Chato. Thus, she prays for the nullification of the unlawful orders
of Petitioner Chato so that private respondent’s accumulated leave credits will
be restored.

The petition is meritorious.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to assign or reassign
internal revenue officers and employees of the BIR as the exigencies of service
may require, without demotion in rank and salary in accordance with Civil
Service Rules and Regulation. The primary reason why private respondent refuses
to comply with RTAO 8-95 was because she took it as an act of vindictiveness and
reprisal on the part of the Commissioner, consequent to her filing a complaint
against the assigned RDO of RDO No. 34 Isidoro Tecson, Jr. (now deceased), on
the basis of a prior assignment order issued by the Commissioner. Nowhere in the
assignment order, RTAO 8-95, can it be gleaned that the reassignment was for the
purpose of harassing private respondent. In fact, private respondent was not the
only one reassigned to a new post.

Private respondent holds the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II and such
appointment will not be altered by her subsequent reassignment as Assistant
Division Chief of the Collection Programs Division, National Office. Such
reassignment is not a demotion for there is no diminution of rank, salary,
status and responsibilities. Private respondent was merely assigned as Assistant
Revenue District Officer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 34 and the
Commissioner may assign or reassign revenue officers, as the exigencies of the
service may require. Such reassignment of revenue officers entails the
prevention of familiarity and patronage between BIR officers and taxpayers of a
particular area. Accordingly, the injunction issued against the implementation
of RTAO 8-95 was unwarranted because private respondent failed to establish a
valid claim or a vested right to the post of Assistant Revenue District Officer
of RDO No. 34. Therefore, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction because private
respondent has no actual existing right which is infringed upon by RTAO No.
8-95.

There is no merit in the argument of private respondent that she will be
demoted by her transfer to the National Office, Collection Programs Division
because she was reassigned to a position totally alien to her proven area of
expertise in assessment. The authority of the BIR Commissioner to issue
reassignment order has been upheld by this Court in an En Banc Decision dated
June 2, 1995, in the case of Hon. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Hon. Eli G.
C. Natividad,^[7] where we held
that:

“Private respondent failed to show patent illegality in the action of the
Commissioner constituting violation of his right to security of tenure. To
sustain his contention that his transfer constitutes a demotion simply because
the new assignment is not to his liking would be to subordinate government
projects, along with the great resources and efforts they entail, to the
individual preferences and opinions of civil service employees. Such contention
would negate the principle that a public office is a public trust and that it is
not the private preserve of any person.” (Emphasis Supplied)

In line with the said Decision, this Court cannot sustain the contention of
private respondent that she was forced to use more than three hundred fifty
(350) days of her accumulated leave credits in order to resist the assailed RTAO
8-95, and prays that her leave credits be restored. The writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the trial court, which enjoined the transfer of private
respondent, was countermanded by the temporary restraining order subsequently
issued by this Court, with the result that petitioner’s transfer became
effective again. We therefore find that the trial court committed a grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the assailed writ of preliminary injunction.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the
order dated May 18, 1995 of respondent judge is ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

 

---

^[1] “Revenue Travel Assignment
Order No. 8-95 (March 22, 1995) The exigencies of the revenue service so
requiring, the following personnel are hereby relieved of their present duties
directed to report to their new assignments as indicated hereunder: