GR 119903; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119903 ; August 15, 2000
HON. RICARDO T. GLORIA, in his capacity as SECRETARY, AND DIRECTOR NILO L. ROSAS in his capacity as REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND DR. BIENVENIDO A. ICASIANO, respondents.
FACTS
Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City in 1989. On October 10, 1994, DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria recommended to the President his reassignment as Vocational Schools Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), to fill a vacancy. The President approved the recommendation on October 12, 1994. Secretary Gloria transmitted the order for implementation, and Director Nilo L. Rosas informed Icasiano of his reassignment effective October 17, 1994.
Icasiano sought reconsideration from Secretary Gloria, which was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing the reassignment violated his security of tenure. The appellate court issued a restraining order and subsequently granted the petition, declaring the reassignment violative of Icasiano’s right to security of tenure due to its indefinite nature. The DECS officials elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the reassignment of Dr. Icasiano from Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City to Vocational School Superintendent of MIST constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The reassignment was declared invalid for infringing upon Icasiano’s security of tenure. The Court rejected the petitioners’ procedural arguments. First, the suit was correctly directed against the administrative officials implementing the order, not the President, and thus did not violate presidential immunity. Second, the petition for prohibition was proper as it alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the officials in executing a reassignment that effectively removed the respondent from his permanent position.
On the substantive issue, the Court applied the doctrine from Bentain v. Court of Appeals. While temporary transfers are permissible, a reassignment that is indefinite in duration amounts to a constructive removal. The reassignment order here specified no period, and Secretary Gloria’s memorandum stated the MIST position would “best fit his qualifications and experience,” implying a permanent fit. This indefinite character, without Icasiano’s consent, circumvented the constitutional protection of security of tenure. The Court held that such an unconsented, indefinite transfer is tantamount to an illegal removal from office. Therefore, the implementation of the reassignment order constituted grave abuse of discretion.