G.R. No. L-23635 August 31, 1966
TEODORO M. CASTRO, as Internal Revenue Director for Southern Luzon, petitioner, vs. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, as Secretary of Finance, BENJAMIN N. TABIOS, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; LUIS VELASCO as Internal Revenue Regional Director; and ELIAS VEGA, as Internal Revenue Regional Director of Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodoro M. Castro, a Civil Service employee with over 33 years of service, held the position of Internal Revenue Regional Director I (R-53) assigned to the Southern Luzon District in San Pablo City. He contested the legality and constitutionality of Internal Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 100-64 dated August 14, 1964, issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of Finance. The order reassigned him from his position as Regional Director of RO-7, San Pablo City, to the position of Revenue Operations Head in the Inspection Department, while reassigning other personnel in a rotational manner. Petitioner argued that this assignment from field to desk work without a corresponding appointment amounted to removal without just cause and that a proper assignment for him would be as Regional Director of Quezon City, which he considered a promotion. Respondents contended the assignment was temporary, effected pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code, and that the new position (Wapco Range 57) actually had a higher duties classification than his original position (Wapco Range 53), constituting a promotion in rank.

ISSUE

Whether the ordered assignment of petitioner against his will, to a position other than that to which he was duly appointed, constitutes removal without cause and violates the constitutional principle of security of tenure for government employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The travel assignment order was issued pursuant to Section 12 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, to assign internal revenue officers and employees to such special duties connected with the administration of the revenue laws as the best interest of the service may require, without change in their official character or salary. The Court held that the term “special duties” in the law refers to functions or work other than those regularly discharged by the employee concerned, indicating a temporary designation. The Court sustained the validity of the order as a lawful exercise of administrative authority designed to promote efficient public service, provided it conforms to Administrative Order No. 42, series of 1937, which requires that such special assignments exceeding thirty days need presidential approval. The order did not violate petitioner’s constitutional right to security of tenure as it did not constitute removal.