GR 111144; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111144 ; July 18, 2002
EDITHA H. CANONIGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PATERNO C. BELCIÑA, JR., HERMENIGILDO MERCADO, FELICITO ANICETO, OCTAVIO QUIJOTE, AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BR. 8, CEBU CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Editha H. Canonigo was the Administrative Officer II of Minglanilla District Hospital (MDH). Pursuant to Executive Order No. 119 on government reorganization, the Department of Health issued Special Order 696-A, reassigning her to Badian District Hospital, approximately 83 kilometers away. She protested, citing the hardship of caring for a sickly daughter. In her stead, respondent Octavio Quijote was appointed as the new administrative officer of MDH. Respondents, led by Regional Director Felicito Aniceto, justified the transfer by citing Canonigo’s alleged inexperience and derogatory records, and Quijote’s superior qualifications and longer service.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Canonigo, ordering her reinstatement to MDH, the removal of Quijote, and awarding damages against respondent Paterno Belciña. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that mandamus would not lie to control the discretionary act of appointment. It found that Director Aniceto validly exercised his discretion in appointing Quijote based on better qualifications and that Canonigo had a temporary appointment and alleged derogatory records.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision, specifically in finding that the reassignment and subsequent non-reinstatement of petitioner were valid and that she was not entitled to reinstatement and damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centered on the violation of petitioner’s right to security of tenure and due process. The Court held that the reorganization under E.O. 119 did not automatically abolish her position or justify her removal. Her reassignment, effectively a constructive removal, was invalid as it was not for cause and was made without prior notice and hearing, violating her constitutional right to due process. The Court found that the purported reasons for her transfer—inexperience and derogatory records—were unsubstantiated and appeared to be a mere pretext to replace her with another appointee. Since her removal was illegal, the writ of mandamus was the proper remedy to compel her reinstatement to her former position. Regarding damages, the Court affirmed the award against respondent Belciña, finding that he acted with evident bad faith in orchestrating her illegal removal, while other respondents acted in their official capacities. The Court emphasized that a public officer who acts in bad faith, beyond the scope of authority, or with grave abuse of discretion is liable for damages.