PADOLINA v FERNANDEZ

FACTS:
Ofelia D. Fernandez was the PAGASA Finance and Management Division Chief of the
DOST.
On April 2, 1996, Padolina issued SO 129 providing for the reassignment of
Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other personnel in PAGASA. Pursuant to this
order, Fernandez was reassigned to the Finance and Management Service Director's
Office in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
Fernandez requested Padolina to lift SO 129 stating that such order was tantamount
to her constructive dismissal, thus, a violation of her security of tenure. However,
Padolina denied the said request inasmuch as he found no compelling reason to lift
SO 129. Instead, he advised Fernandez to comply with the order of reassignment.
Fernandez appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) praying that SO 129 be
declared ineffective and that she be restored to her former position, but the CSC
dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Padolina issued DOST Special Order No. 557, S. 1996, which directed the return of
certain PAGASA officials/employees to their units as of March 30, 1996. Likewise, it
ordered the retention of other PAGASA personnel, including Fernandez, at their
current assignments in accordance with SO 129.
A fact-finding committee was formed to look into the reason behind her refusal to
accept her reassignment. After an ex-parte evaluation of pertinent documents, the
committee recommended that a formal charge of insubordination be filed against
the Fernandez. After a trial in absentia, a report was submitted by the committee
finding Fernandez guilty of insubordination. The committee recommended that a
penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay be imposed on
Fernandez. On May 13, 1997, Padolina issued a decision adopting the committee's
findings and recommendation.
Fernandez moved for reconsideration of the CSC Resolution denying her appeal but
was denied, hence she elevated case to CA. CA declared S)129 void ab initio
because such order adversely affected the position of respondent who should be
restored to all the rights and privileges of her office; and that respondent's
reassignment has effectively demoted her in rank, status and salary for a triple
violation of the Administrative Code of 1987.
ISSUE: WON SO129 is void ab initio and if reassignment is valid.
Held/Ratio
No. A reassignment is a movement from one unit to another in the same agency
which does not involve a reduction in rank, status, salary, and does not require an
appointment.

Section 24 (g) of Presidential Decree No. 807 authorizes reassignment by providing

that an employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the
same agency but such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or
salary. A diminution in rank, status, or salary, is enough to invalidate such a
reassignment.
SO 129 does not have any definite duration for reassignment, it being expressly
subject to a separate DOST Special Order.
It is tantamount to an indefinite floating assignment resulting in a demotion.
Itremoves her power of supervision over 41 subordinate employees, thereby
diminishing her status
SO 129 violated the security of tenure of respondent and hence, invalid. An
examination of SO 129 also shows that the questioned order contains no definite
date or duration of the reassignment. In fact, in No. 4 of the Implementing
Guidelines of SO 129, it is stated therein that "the return of the various
Branch/Division/Section Chiefs and other personnel concerned to their respective
Units shall be the subject of a separate DOST Special Order," which means that the
respondent's duration of service in the office of the DOST-FMS Director shall be for
an indefinite date, dependent on the time when the DOST shall issue a new special
order which may or may not even include respondent. As a matter of fact, she was
not one of those returned to their original units per DOST Special Order No.
557. Accordingly, the SC held that such a situation is indeed tantamount to a
floating assignment, which results in a diminution of status or rank. The SC also
ruled that respondent was deprived of the emoluments attached to her former
position like RATA and similar allowances which signified a diminution in
compensation that is proscribed by the rule on re-assignment. Finally, the SC also
held that the status of respondent has been adversely affected inasmuch as her
reassignment to the DOST-FMS Director's Office reduced her to a mere subordinate
without authority to supervise anyone; in effect, she was demoted in rank and
status.
GLORIA v CA
FACTS:
On June 29, 1989, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed Schools Division
Superintendent, Division of City Schools, Quezon City, by the then President
Corazon C. Aquino. Upon recommendation of DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria,
Icasiano was reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and
Technology (MIST) to fill up the vacuum created by the retirement of its
Superintendent in 1994. Icasiano filed a TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction
enjoining the implementation of his reassignment. The Court of Appeals granted the
petition holding that the indefinite reassignment is violative of Icasianos right to
security of tenure.

The DECS Secretary argued that the filing of the case is improper because the same
attacks an act of the President, in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity
from suit.
Issues :
1. Whether or not the filing of the case violates the presidential immunity from suit.
2. Whether or not private respondent's reassignment is violative of his security of
tenure.
HELD:
1. Petitioners contention is untenable for the simple reason that the petition is
directed against
petitioners and not against the President. The questioned acts are those of
petitioners and not of the President. Furthermore, presidential decisions may be
questioned before the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the
President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
2. After a careful study, the Court upholds the finding of the respondent court that
the reassignment of petitioner to MIST "appears to be indefinite". The same can be
inferred from the Memorandum of Secretary Gloria for President Fidel V. Ramos to
the effect that the reassignment of private respondent will "best fit his qualifications
and experience" being "an expert in vocational and technical education." It can thus
be gleaned that subject reassignment is more than temporary as the private
respondent has been described as fit for the (reassigned) job, being an expert in the
field. Besides, there is nothing in the said Memorandum to show that the
reassignment of private respondent is temporary or would only last until a
permanent replacement is found as no period is specified or fixed; which fact
evinces an intention on the part of petitioners to reassign private respondent with
no definite period or duration. Such feature of the reassignment in question is
definitely violative of the security of tenure of the private respondent. As held in
Bentain vs. Court of Appeals (209 SCRA 644):
"Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of our
civil service. The mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed
without cause but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to
illegal removals. While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is
permissible even without the employees prior consent, it cannot be done when the
transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away
from his permanent position, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force
his resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which
safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service (Sta. Maria vs.
Lopez, 31 SCRA 651; Garcia vs. Lejano, 109 Phil. 116)." Having found the

reassignment of private respondent to the MIST to be violative of his security of

tenure, the order for his reassignment to the MIST cannot be countenanced.