● Even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the president, he cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a case filed against him because the questioned acts are not the acts of the President but merely those of a department secretary. Moreover, 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.

 ● Indefinite reassignment is violative of the security of tenure.

Facts: 

In 1989, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed by Pres. Cory Aquino as Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City.

In 1994, 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. Pres. Ramos approved the recommendation.

Sec. Gloria transmitted a copy of the recommendation to Director Rosas for implementation.

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 Icasiano’s right to security of tenure.

The Sec. Gloria 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. May heads of executive department invoke the president's immunity from suit?

2. Is Icasiano's reassignment violative of his security of tenure?


Held:

1. No. Even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the President, he cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a case filed against him because the questioned acts are not the acts of the President but merely those of a department Secretary. 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 (Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 555; Ibanez vs. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 1002; Brillantes vs. Guevarra, 27 SCRA 138).
While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee’s 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. CA decision affirmed. (Ricardo T. Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903. August 15, 2000)