G.R. No. 89452 June 9, 1992
EDUARDO V. BENTAIN, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE V. ABUEVA, in his capacity as President of the University of the Philippines, ERNESTO G. TABUJARA, in his capacity as Chancellor of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, and the BOARD OF REGENTS of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo V. Bentain held a permanent appointment as Chief Security Officer of the U.P. Diliman Police. On July 20, 1981, U.P. President Edgardo J. Angara issued Administrative Order No. 46 reassigning petitioner to the Office of the U.P. President to work on the “operationalization” and implementation of the University Police Force’s duties and responsibilities. This reassignment was clarified by Administrative Order No. 46-A as a full-time assignment for the duration of the project. On February 16, 1984, through verbal instructions, petitioner was transferred to the Office of the Vice President for Administration and later to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs, where he remained. Petitioner completed his report on the project by 1982. He wrote several letters/petitions to various university officials and government bodies praying for reinstatement to his original position, but to no avail. On December 21, 1986, respondent Chancellor Tabujara issued Administrative Order No. 146, creating the U.P. Diliman Security and Safety Commission. On December 22, 1988, Administrative Order No. 148 appointed the Commissioners. Subsequently, with the Chancellor’s approval, the Commission issued General Order No. 1, which set up the organizational structure of the U.P. Diliman Police and abolished petitioner’s position as Chief Security Officer. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. 86739), alleging the orders were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the special civil action was not the appropriate remedy. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner’s indefinite detail or reassignment constitutes a violation of his right to security of tenure.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the respondents to cease and desist from implementing Administrative Orders Nos. 146 and 148 and General Order No. 1 insofar as they resulted in the abolition of petitioner’s position, and to reinstate petitioner to his former position as Chief Security Officer. The Court held that petitioner’s reassignment under Administrative Order No. 46 was temporary, as indicated by its specific purpose, which was accomplished by 1982. His permanent position entitled him to security of tenure. The indefinite reassignment, lasting approximately ten years, which resulted in a reduction in his rank, status, and salary (being classified as SSO III instead of SSO IV and excluded from merit increases), constituted a constructive removal from service. The subsequent orders creating the U.P. Diliman Security and Safety Commission and abolishing his position appeared to be a scheme to prevent his return to his former position, thereby violating his constitutional right to security of tenure.