● Even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of
the president, he cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a case
filed against him because the questioned acts are not the acts of the President
but merely those of a department secretary. Moreover, presidential decisions
may be questioned before the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or
that the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
● Indefinite reassignment is definitely violative of the security
of tenure.
Facts:
Private
respondent Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed Schools Division
Superintendent of Quezon City in 1989. Upon recommendation of DECS Secretary Ricardo
T. Gloria, Icasiano was reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina
Institute of Science and Technology (MIST) to fill up the vacuum created by the
retirement of its Superintendent in 1994.
Icasiano
filed a TRO and preliminary mandatory injuction enjoining the implementation of
his reassignment. The Court of Appeals granted the petition holding that the
indefinite reassignment is violative of Icasiano’s right to security of
tenure.
The DECS Secretary
argued that the filing of the case is improper because the same attacks an
act of the President, in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity
from suit.
Issues:
1.
Whether or not the filing of the case violates the presidential immunity from
suit.
2.
Whether or not private respondent's reassignment is violative of his security
of tenure.
Held:
1. Petitioners’ contention is untenable for the simple
reason that the petition is directed against petitioners and not against the
President. The questioned acts are those of petitioners and not of the
President. Furthermore, presidential decisions may be questioned before the
courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction.
2.
After a careful study, the Court upholds the finding of the respondent court
that the reassignment of petitioner to MIST "appears to be
indefinite". The same can be inferred from the Memorandum of Secretary Gloria for
President Fidel V. Ramos to the effect that the reassignment of private
respondent will "best fit his qualifications and experience" being
"an expert in vocational and technical education." It can thus be
gleaned that subject reassignment is more than temporary as the private
respondent has been described as fit for the (reassigned) job, being an expert
in the field. Besides, there is nothing in the said Memorandum to show that the
reassignment of private respondent is temporary or would only last until a
permanent replacement is found as no period is specified or fixed; which fact
evinces an intention on the part of petitioners to reassign private respondent
with no definite period or duration. Such feature of the reassignment in
question is definitely violative of the security of tenure of the private
respondent. As held in Bentain vs. Court of Appeals (209 SCRA 644):
"Security of tenure is a
fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of our civil service. The
mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause
but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal
removals (Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. Court of Appeals, 183
SCRA 555; Ibanez vs. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 1002; Brillantes vs. Guevarra, 27 SCRA
138).
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. Such a
transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure
of office of those who are in the Civil Service (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA
651; Garcia vs. Lejano, 109 Phil. 116)."
Having found the reassignment of
private respondent to the MIST to be violative of his security of tenure, the
order for his reassignment to the MIST cannot be countenanced. (Ricardo T. Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903. August 15, 2000)
0
Comments
