G.R. No. L-26428. August 7, 1975.
DR. AMADEO H. CRUZ, as Acting Secretary of Health, CESARIA GODUCO-AGUILAR, as Chief of Clinics and Acting Medical Director, National Mental Hospital, and JOSE CLARIN, as Assistant to the Chief and Hospital Administrator, National Mental Hospital, petitioners, vs. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, at Pasig, Rizal and ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Dr. Antonio Rodriguez, a career civil service official and Chief of the National Mental Hospital, was the subject of Department Order No. 183-A issued by the Secretary of Health on July 7, 1966, which relieved him of his position and reassigned him to the Bureau of Medical Services. Rodriguez contested this order as an illegal removal. Subsequently, the Secretary issued Department Order No. 207, dated July 27, 1966, which “temporarily relieved” Rodriguez of his duties at the National Mental Hospital and reassigned him on “temporary detail” to the Bureau of Medical Services for a period not exceeding thirty days. The order simultaneously appointed other officials to replace him. Rodriguez filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of Department Order No. 207, allowing Rodriguez to remain in his position.
The petitioners, health officials, then filed this action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the lower court’s orders and to dissolve the injunction. They argued that the temporary detail was a valid exercise of administrative prerogative in the interest of public service and did not constitute removal. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the lower court’s injunction. The core issue revolved around whether the temporary detail, issued against Rodriguez’s will and effectively displacing him from his appointed position, was a circumvention of his constitutional security of tenure.

ISSUE

Whether the assignment of private respondent Rodriguez, against his will, on temporary detail to another bureau, thereby taking him away from his duly appointed position, constitutes removal from office without cause and violates the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of respondent Rodriguez, dismissing the petition and making the lower court’s injunction permanent. The Court acknowledged the general rule that public officials may be temporarily assigned or detailed to other duties over their objection when public interest demands, without violating security of tenure. However, this administrative prerogative cannot be used as a subterfuge to effect an illegal removal. The legal logic applied is that a transfer or detail becomes invalid if it is undertaken with a view to removal or as a scheme to lure the employee away from his permanent position, as such would circumvent the constitutional and statutory safeguards of tenure.
Examining the circumstances, the Court found that Department Order No. 207 was not issued in good faith for a legitimate administrative purpose. It was a mere revision of the earlier, patently illegal Order No. 183-A, cloaked in the language of a “temporary detail” to disguise the intent to oust Rodriguez from his position without cause and without due process. The simultaneous appointment of replacements confirmed the permanent nature of the displacement. Since the detail was a scheme to achieve an unlawful removal, it was declared void. The Court emphasized that the state cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. Therefore, the order infringed upon Rodriguez’s constitutional right to security of tenure.