Case Digest (G.R. No. 119903)
Facts:
Hon. Ricardo T. Gloria, in his Capacity as Secretary, and Director Nilo L. Rosas in his Capacity as Regional Director, Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Dr. Bienvenido A. Icasiano, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000, the Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.On June 29, 1989, Dr. Bienvenido A. Icasiano (private respondent) was appointed Schools Division Superintendent, Division of City Schools, Quezon City. On October 10, 1994, Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria recommended to the President that Icasiano be reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST) to fill the vacancy left by a retirement. The President approved the recommendation on October 12, 1994; the recommendation was transmitted to Director Nilo L. Rosas on October 13, 1994. Rosas informed Icasiano of the reassignment on October 14, 1994, effective October 17, 1994.
Icasiano asked Secretary Gloria to reconsider; the request was denied. He prepared a letter to the President dated October 18, 1994 seeking reconsideration but did not file it. On October 19, 1994, Icasiano filed a petition with the Court of Appeals seeking prohibition and injunctive relief to prevent implementation of the reassignment. The Court of Appeals initially denied a TRO on October 26, 1994, then on November 22, 1994 set aside that denial and restrained petitioners from implementing the reassignment. On December 21, 1994 the Court of Appeals set the hearing for a writ of preliminary injunction and enjoined implementation pending hearing.
On March 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals (opinion by Assoc. Justice Hector L. Hofilena, with concur. by Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. and Godardo A. Jacinto) rendered a decision declaring the reassignment violative of Icasiano’s right to security of tenure and ordered respondents prohibited from implementing it. Secretary Gloria and Director Rosas filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in allowing relief that effectively questioned an act of the President, in violation of presidential immunity from suit?
- Was the petition for prohibition properly brought against the petitioners (DECS officials) — i.e., did the petition sufficiently allege that petitioners acted with grave abuse of discretion or beyond jurisdiction to allow judicial review?
- Was the reassignment of private respondent from Schools Division Superintendent, Quezon City, to Vocational Schools Superintendent of M...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)