EDUARDO V. BENTAIN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE V. ABUEVA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ERNESTO G. TABUJARA, IN HIS CAP…

Bentain versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Eduardo Bentain, the permanent Chief Security Officer of the University of the Philippines Diliman Police, against the Court of Appeals, the University President, the Chancellor, and the Board of Regents. Bentain had been detailed away from his post in 1981 and never returned; a decade later, a new security commission abolished his position outright. He came to the Supreme Court asking for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and the case matters because it fixes the rule that an indefinite reassignment which reduces rank, status, and salary is a constructive removal, and that security of tenure protects against unconsented transfers as much as against outright dismissal.

Procedural History

Bentain first filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, alleging that the administrative orders creating the security commission and the general order abolishing his position were unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate determination. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were not the appropriate remedy. Bentain then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review, and the Supreme Court reversed.

Facts

Bentain held a permanent appointment as Chief Security Officer of the University of the Philippines Diliman Police. In May 1981 a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against him before the Tanodbayan; the case reached the Sandiganbayan and was dismissed in June 1982. Meanwhile, in July 1981, the University President issued Administrative Order No. 46 detailing Bentain to the Office of the President to work on the operationalization and implementation of the duties of the University Police Force, and Administrative Order No. 46-A clarified that this would be his sole concern for the duration of the assignment.

In February 1984, through verbal instructions of the University Secretary, Bentain was transferred to the Office of the Vice President for Administration, and later assigned to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs, where he remained. A series of administrative cases were filed against him from 1981 to 1986, but all except one for failure to turn over his service firearm were dismissed for lack of merit and insufficient evidence. He wrote repeated letters to the University President, the Chancellor, the Board of Regents, the Civil Service Commission, and the President of the Philippines, praying for reinstatement or reassignment to his original position, all to no avail.

In December 1988 the Chancellor created the University of the Philippines Diliman Security and Safety Commission, an advisory and executory body under his direction and administrative control, with power of immediate direction, supervision, coordination, and control over the University police and authority to make changes in assignments and to reshuffle heads of sections. With the Chancellor's approval, the Commission issued General Order No. 1, setting up the organizational structure of the police and abolishing Bentain's position as Chief Security Officer. These orders came only a few months after the University's legal counsel had recommended his restoration.

Issues

• Whether or not Bentain's indefinite detail or reassignment in the Office of the University Vice President for Administration violated his right to security of tenure.
• Whether or not the reassignment, being indefinite and resulting in a reduction of rank, status, and salary, amounted to a constructive removal from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24, paragraph (g) of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree, provides:

An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency, but such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary.

This is the provision the Court construes: reassignment is allowed, but only within the limit that it must not reduce rank, status, or salary, and Bentain's detail breached that limit.

Ruling

The petition is impressed with merit. On the first issue, the Court held that Bentain's detail was temporary from the start: Administrative Order No. 46 stated a specific purpose, to work on the operationalization and implementation of the University Police Force's duties, which showed it was meant to last only until he completed and submitted his report. He was never removed from his position as Chief Security Officer and was never given a new appointment to a new position with a new title; hence there was no transfer. Since his position was permanent, he was entitled to security of tenure under the Civil Service Law and the Constitution.

The Court explained that the mantle of security of tenure 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 is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, but not when it is a preliminary step toward removal, a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, designed to indirectly terminate his service, or meant to force his resignation, for such a transfer would circumvent the constitutional safeguard.

On the second issue, the Court found that Bentain had completed his report as early as 1982, a fact confirmed by the University General Counsel's memorandum. Given the long duration of the reassignment, approximately ten years, and that its purpose had long been accomplished, there was no reason to deny his return. As Chief Security Officer he had supervised the entire police force; the reassignment reduced him to a mere subordinate without authority to supervise anyone, demoting him in rank and status. He was excluded from merit increases, and under the salary standardization law he was classified as SSO III, Grade 18, with a salary of 68,040 pesos per annum, instead of SSO IV, Grade 22, with a salary of 99,000 pesos per annum. 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. The questioned orders, coming shortly after the recommendation for his restoration, appeared issued to prevent his return.

Doctrine

Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of the civil service, and its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause but also to unconsented transfers tantamount to illegal removals. A temporary transfer or assignment may be made even without the employee's consent, but it is void when it is a preliminary step toward removal, a scheme to lure him from his permanent position, designed to indirectly terminate his service, or meant to force his resignation. Under Section 24, paragraph (g) of Presidential Decree No. 807, a reassignment must not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary; an indefinite reassignment that does so is a constructive removal. A detail is temporary when it is issued for a specific purpose, and it cannot be prolonged beyond the accomplishment of that purpose to the prejudice of a permanent employee.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordered the respondents to cease and desist from implementing the questioned administrative orders and general order insofar as they would abolish Bentain's position, and ordered his reinstatement as Chief Security Officer of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: an indefinite reassignment that reduces rank, status, and salary is a constructive removal, and security of tenure protects against it as against outright dismissal. Examiners use this case on the civil service guarantee against unconsented transfers and on the limits of reassignment under the Civil Service Decree.