G.R. No. 89452 - Bentain vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioner, Eduardo V. Bentain, held a permanent appointment as Chief Security Officer of the U.P. Diliman Police.
On May 5, 1981, a criminal complaint alleging violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against him, which was later dismissed by the Sandiganbayan on June 18, 1982.
Despite the dismissal of criminal and several administrative cases (except one relating to failure to turn over his service firearm), his service record became the subject of administrative adjustments.

On July 20, 1981, then U.P. President Edgardo J. Angara issued Administrative Order No. 46 reassigning the petitioner to the Office of the U.P. President with the express purpose of operationalizing and implementing the duties of the University Police Force.
On the same day, Administrative Order No. 46-A clarified that the petitioner was to work full-time on the said project, indicating a temporary detail until the report was completed.
Later developments included:

A verbal transfer on February 16, 1984, to the Office of the Vice President for Administration by University Secretary Martin Gregorio.
Subsequent assignment to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs, where he remained for an extended period.

Multiple petitions and letters were filed by the petitioner to various university officials (including Presidents and the Board of Regents) seeking reinstatement or reassignment back to his original permanent office.
On December 21-22, 1988, Administrative Orders Nos. 146 and 148 were issued by respondent Ernesto G. Tabujara, then Chancellor of the U.P. Diliman, which:

Created the U.P. Diliman Security and Safety Commission.
Appointed its commissioners, thereby establishing the Commission as an advisory and executory body responsible for directing and supervising the University Police.

With the approval of the Chancellor, the Commission subsequently issued General Order No. 1 that reorganized the U.P. Diliman Police Force, effectively abolishing the petitioner’s position as Chief Security Officer.
On February 7, 1989, the petitioner initiated a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus challenging the legality of these administrative orders and seeking reinstatement to his original post.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on June 30, 1989, ruling that the special civil action was not the appropriate remedy, which led to the present petition for review.

Whether or not the petitioner’s indefinite detail or reassignment to the Office of the U.P. Vice-President for Administration constitutes a violation of his right to security of tenure.

Whether the reassignment amounted to a de facto removal or demotion given that it reduced the petitioner’s rank, status, and salary.
Whether the issuance of Administrative Orders Nos. 146, 148, and General Order No. 1 served as an indirect means to prevent his reinstatement as Chief Security Officer.
If the temporary nature of his detail as specified in Administrative Order No. 46 was overridden by a long period of reassignment (nearly ten years), thus infringing on his entitlements under the Civil Service Law and the Constitution.