G.R. No. 120539; October 20, 2000
HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and JACINTO T. MARCELO, petitioners, vs. HON. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, Presiding Judge of Branch 76, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Estrella V. Martinez, then Assistant Revenue District Officer (ARDO) of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 34, was reassigned to Assistant Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office via Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 8-95 issued by petitioner Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato. This reassignment followed Martinez’s grievance complaint after she was not promoted to the vacant Revenue District Officer position, which was instead given to Isidro Tecson Jr. The Department of Finance Grievance Committee resolved in Martinez’s favor, directing the BIR to adhere to the merit promotion plan. Martinez filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court, alleging the reassignment was a punitive demotion and dislocation, issued in bad faith and in violation of civil service rules.
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of RTAO No. 8-95. The petitioners, Commissioner Chato and Jacinto T. Marcelo (who was to replace Martinez), challenged the injunction, asserting that the Commissioner’s authority to reassign personnel in the exigency of the service is a management prerogative beyond judicial interference, especially since the Civil Service Commission had already dismissed Martinez’s protest against Tecson’s designation.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against the reassignment order.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy requiring a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. The Court found no such clear right in Martinez’s favor. The power to appoint, assign, and transfer personnel is inherently vested in the executive head of an agency, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, pursuant to administrative authority and the exigencies of the service. The reassignment, on its face, was a lateral movement involving no reduction in rank, salary, or status; it was merely an exercise of management prerogative. Allegations of bad faith or vindictiveness, while serious, require full adjudication on the merits and are not proper grounds for a preliminary injunction where the right is not clear and uncontroverted. The trial court’s order restraining a legitimate executive function based on unproven allegations prematurely interfered with administrative discretion. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the injunctive orders for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.