GR L 29113; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29113; April 18, 1969
PAZ M. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, Executive Judge, Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch VII, and LORENZO C. STA ANA, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance, Pasay City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Paz M. Garcia holds an appointment as Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City). On March 25, 1968, the Secretary of Justice issued a directive assigning her to work in the stenographers’ Section, Judiciary Division, of the Department of Justice until further notice, requiring her to finish all stenographic transcripts due from her in appealed cases. Petitioner sought reconsideration, claiming the transfer was a demotion and an illegal removal. The Secretary reiterated the directive. Petitioner refused to comply, stating she would report for duty at the Pasay City court. Official records disclosed that at the time of the directive, petitioner had untranscribed stenographic notes in at least eight cases pending in the Court of Appeals and forty-two cases in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City. There was also a petition from the court personnel for disciplinary action against her. Petitioner filed this petition for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the directive’s implementation and to be allowed to discharge her duties as Assistant Clerk of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice’s directive assigning petitioner to the Department of Justice’s stenographers’ section constituted a valid exercise of administrative power and was not an illegal removal or demotion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The directive was a valid exercise of administrative power issued without abuse of discretion. It was temporary and justified by the needs of the service, specifically to compel the transcription of her overdue stenographic notes to avoid delays in the administration of justice. The assignment did not reduce her rank or salary and was made in the interest of public service under Section 32 of the Civil Service Act. Petitioner’s refusal to comply was unjustified. Her conduct, including deception to obtain salary payments, disqualified her from seeking equitable relief. Furthermore, her failure to exhaust administrative remedies by first recourse to the Commissioner of Civil Service barred judicial redress. The petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus was denied for lack of merit.