G.R. No. 14459. May 30, 1960
AGRINELDA N. MICLAT, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. ELVIRA GANADEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
have respondent Elvira Ganaden declared not entitled to
the position of Social Welfare Administration Officer
of Mt. Province and to have herself instead assigned to
said station which she claims to be her rightful assignment.
It is alleged that petitioner is a duly appointed Welfare Officer
Incharge, Division of Urban, Rural and Community Welfare in the Social
Welfare Administration under which she was assigned as Social Welfare
Incharge of Mt. Province, by virtue of Special Order No. 14, dated
January 21, 1956, of the Acting Administrator, Social Welfare
Administration; that she has been uninterruptedly discharging the
functions of said office until January 15, 1957, when she was granted a
maternity leave of absence, and while on such leave respondent Ganaden
was designated as officer incharge in her place; that on April 3, 1957,
when petitioner reported back to her position, respondent Ganaden
refused to vacate the position as a consequence of which petitioner
wrote to the Commission of Civil Service on April 3, 1957 which
resulted in the issuance of Special Order No. 104, series of 1957,
dated May 10, 1957, directing Ganaden to assume her former duties as
Social Welfare Officer of Baguio City; that later respondent Amparo
Villamor issued Special Order No. 114, dated May 25, 1957, relieving
petitioner as Officer Incharge of Mt. Province and designating Ganaden
to take her place; that petitioner requested for a reconsideration
followed by a letter dated November 27, 1957, addressed to the
President for the same purpose; that the Chief of the Field Services of
the Social Welfare Administration wrote a 4th indorsement dated January
24, 1958 addressed to the Acting Chief, Division of Administration of
the SWA, which recognized the right of petitioner to the office of
Welfare Officer Incharge of Mt. Province, as in fact respondent
Villamor addressed to the Commission of Civil Service a communication
stating that she has already issued Special Order No. 14, dated January
21, 1958, returning petitioner to her position as Officer Incharge of
Mt. Province; that despite the aforementioned Special Order No. 14,
respondent Ganaden refused to turn over the office to petitioner; that
for reasons unknown to petitioner, respondent Villamor ordered
petitioner to report to her at the central office in Manila for
conference and while there Villamor attempted to prevail upon her to
give up her position as Officer Incharge of Mt. Province in favor of
Ganaden, to which petitioner did not consent; that after petitioner has
filed a criminal action against Ganaden for the latter’s refusal to
turn over the office in dispute, Special Order No. 44, series of 1958,
dated March 21, 1958 was issued by respondent Villamor revoking Special
Order No. 14 and replacing petitioner in the position of Officer
Incharge of Mt. Province; that despite her appeal to respondent
Villamor for the revocation of Special Order No. 44, Villamor has not
taken any action thereon.
In their answer, respondents set up the following special
defenses: (1) that as stated clearly in the appointment
extended to petitioner dated December 3, 1955, said petitioner was appointed as Welfare Officer Incharge, Division
of Urban, Rural and Community Welfare in the Social
Welfare Administration, not as Welfare Officer Incharge
with station at Mt. Province; (2) that the Social Welfare
Administrator, as Department Head, is not precluded
from exercising her authority under the law to order
the transfer of personnel in her office from one station
to another as she may see fit in the interest of public
service; (3) that the complaint states no cause of action;
and (4) that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain
this petition because petitioner has not exhausted all her
administrative remedies before resorting to court.
After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment the
dispositive part of which reads:
“Judgment is, therefore, rendered, ordering the Social Welfare
Commissioner to place Petitioner in her position as Welfare Officer
in Charge, Mt. Province (La Trinidad Section) and ordering
Respondent Ganaden to allow Petitioner to assume her position.
No damages or attorney’s fees are awarded as Respondent acted
in good faith. No pronouncement as to costs.”
Respondents have appealed.
The trial court, in holding that petitioner cannot be
transferred from her assignment as Officer Incharge of
Mt. Province to another with station at Bagnio City, for
that would amount to a removal, made the following
comment:
“Under the leading cases of Lacson vs. Romero and Santos vs. Mallari, the mantle of protection has been spread over a school
principal from transferring him without his consent, as such a
transfer would amount to a removal (Alzate vs. Mabutas, CA 51
Off. Gaz. 2452). Inhere is no doubt that petitioner falls within a
similar category as a school principal who was not appointed for
a particular place.”
While the doctrine laid down in the cases cited by
the trial court is to the effect that the transfers of
officers against their will amount to a removal, the same
is predicated upon the theory that said officers are appointed to particular stations and as such cannot be
transferred without their consent. Their appointments
to their stations are their safeguards and to transfer
them to another place without their consent would be
tantamount to removing them from the positions they
actually hold.
The case before us, however, does not involve any
appointment to any particular station. It merely concerns an assignment to a station made in the interest of
the service. Thus, it appears that the appointment extended to petitioner is that of Welfare Officer Incharge,
Division of Urban, Rural and Community Administration,
the appointment having been extended by the President,
upon the recommendation of the Social Welfare Administrator. Likewise, respondent Elvira Ganaden has also
been extended an appointment to a similar office, also
by the President, upon the recommendation of the same
official. They both, therefore, bear appointments as welfare officers attached to the central office without any
definite stations. As such, considering the nature of their
appointments, both may be assigned to any place or station where their services may be needed, and wherever
they are assigned they retain their position as Welfare
Officer of the Social Welfare Administration. And this
power and discretion the Social Welfare Administrator
may exercise under Section 79 (d) of the Revised Administrative Code which partly provides: “The Department
Head also may, from time to time, in the interest of the
service, change the distribution among the several Bureaus
and offices of his Department of the employees or subordinates authorized by law.”
It appearing that petitioner has been merely assigned as
Officer Incharge of Mt. Province because her appointment is to hold office as Welfare Officer of the Social
Welfare Administration without any particular station,
it is evident that she may be reassigned to another place
or station if such is necessary in the interest of the service.
This can be done in the exercise of the discretion given
by law to the Social Welfare Administrator. This assignment does not come into conflict with the doctrine
laid down in the cases cited by the trial court.
The trial court has cited the provisions of Section 32,
Republic Act No. 1800, as authority to support its conclusion that petitioner cannot be transferred to Baguio
City against her consent because her transfer was made
without the approval of the Commission of Civil Service.
Said Section 32, Republic Act 1800, reads as follows:
“Sec.
32. Authority to change designations of positions and assignments.—The
heads or chiefs of bureaus and offices are hereby authorized to change
the designations of positions and to make changes in the assignments of
personnel as the exigencies of the service may require: Provided
However, That such changes shall not affect the tenure of office of
incumbents of positions, shall not constitute a demotion, either in
rank or salary, nor result in a change in status, and shall in all
cases be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service.”
The above provision does not refer to all kinds of
assignment of personnel. It rather contemplates the
giving of temporary assignment to a public officer or employee with a fixed and definite place or station. It does
not apply to a public officer or employee whose appointment is not for a particular place, like petitioner or
respondent Ganaden, where there is no necessity for the
approval of the Commission of Civil Service for their
assignment to another station if the interest of the service
should require.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed,
without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador,
Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.