G.R. No. L-78946 April 15, 1988
DR. NENITA PALMA-FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. DR. ADRIANO DE LA PAZ, DR. SOSEPATRO AGUILA, and THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Nenita Palma-Fernandez, a career physician, was permanently appointed as Chief of Clinics at the Hospital ng Bagong Lipunan (now East Avenue Medical Center) in May 1985. Following a reorganization in 1986, her position was retitled Assistant Director for Professional Services, and she was formally designated as such by Medical Center Chief Dr. Adriano de la Paz in August 1986. She continued to exercise direct control and supervision over all department heads.
In May 1987, respondent De la Paz issued two Hospital Orders. Order No. 21 designated Dr. Sosepatro Aguila as the new Assistant Director for Professional Services, “vice Dr. Nenita Palma-Fernandez, who will be transferred to the Research Office.” Simultaneously, Order No. 22 relieved petitioner of her duties as Chief of Clinics and transferred her to the Research Office, citing “the interest of the hospital service.” Petitioner filed a letter-protest with the Secretary of Health, but after receiving no action within a month, she filed this Petition for Quo Warranto.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether respondent De la Paz had the authority to issue the Hospital Orders effecting petitioner’s transfer; (2) whether petitioner had a valid cause of action for quo warranto; and (3) whether the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies barred the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, granting the writ of quo warranto. On the first issue, the Court held that respondent De la Paz, as Medical Center Chief, lacked the authority to issue the orders effecting petitioner’s transfer. Under Section 79(D) of the Revised Administrative Code, the power to appoint and remove subordinate officers in an attached agency like the East Avenue Medical Center is vested in the Department Head (the Secretary of Health), upon the recommendation of the bureau or office chief. The Medical Center Chief’s role is merely recommendatory. Even a transfer constitutes a personnel action requiring an appointment, which was beyond De la Paz’s power.
Furthermore, the Court found the transfer invalid. It was effected without petitioner’s consent and amounted to a removal without cause, violating the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The “interest of the service” justification was unavailing as the transfer was tantamount to an unlawful removal. On the second issue, the Court held that quo warranto was the proper remedy since Dr. Aguila’s assumption of the office constituted an intrusion, and petitioner had a clear right to the position she was unlawfully deprived of.
Regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court noted exceptions applied. The questions involved were purely legal, and the contested orders were patently illegal for violating constitutional tenure rights, thus warranting immediate judicial intervention. Petitioner had also substantially complied by filing a protest that remained unacted upon. The one-year prescriptive period for filing quo warranto would not be suspended by pending administrative remedies. Consequently, petitioner was declared entitled to the position, and the temporary restraining order against the Hospital Orders was made permanent.