G.R. No. 113843 - Vinzons-Chato vs. Natividad

A petition for certiorari was filed by petitioner Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato and Solon B. Alcantara challenging the Regional Trial Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction.
The injunction enjoined the Commissioner from transferring private respondent Salvador Nori Blas from his post as Revenue District Officer in San Fernando, Pampanga to Tuguegarao, Cagayan.

On October 26, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos issued E.O. No. 132 entitled “Approving the Streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.”
Pursuant to this executive order, on December 1, 1993, the Commissioner issued Revenue Administrative Order No. 5-93 which:

Redefined the areas of jurisdiction by subdividing the existing nineteen revenue regions into 115 revenue districts.
Abolished the previous classification system (Class A-1, A, B, C, and D) for Revenue District Offices (RDOs), treating all as of the same class.

On December 10, 1993, the Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 80-93 directing ninety revenue district officers to report to their new assignments under the redesignated and renumbered revenue districts.

Among those affected, private respondent Nori B. Blas was ordered to report to Revenue District No. 14 (later reassigned to Tuguegarao, Cagayan).
Petitioner Solon B. Alcantara was simultaneously ordered to assume the position in San Fernando, Pampanga, which became Revenue District No. 21.

On December 15, 1993, private respondent wrote to the Commissioner requesting reconsideration of his transfer, contending:

His established record—being among the top examiners for six consecutive years and recognized as a model employee—was disregarded.
The reassignment represented a demotion due to being transferred from a larger revenue district (San Fernando) to what he perceived as a smaller one (Tuguegarao).
His personal health condition (diabetes), which required proximity to his doctor, would be adversely affected by the long travel involved.

On January 19, 1994, with his correspondence unaddressed, he filed a verified complaint seeking an injunction (with a preliminary injunction and TRO) against the Commissioner and petitioner Alcantara.
The complaint alleged that the transfer, under the guise of “redeployment in the exigencies of the service,” caused a diminution in rank, status, span of duties, and a dislocation from a post with greater revenue capacity.

A temporary restraining order was issued on January 20, 1994, and the hearing for a writ of preliminary injunction was set for January 28, 1994.
On February 7, 1994, the trial court granted the writ of preliminary injunction:

It enjoined the Commissioner from enforcing the transfer order against private respondent.
It fixed a bond of P5,000.00 for potential damages if the injunction was later deemed unwarranted.

The order was based primarily on preserving the status quo until a full trial could resolve whether there was any reduction in duties or a de facto demotion.

On February 24, 1994, the Commissioner filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, challenging the RTC’s injunction order.
Petitioner’s arguments included:

Private respondent had no vested right to his assignment in San Fernando since he was designated rather than appointed, and thus could be lawfully transferred.
The reassignment was pursuant to EO No. 132 and designed for the public service benefit, not as a disciplinary measure.
The abolition of the previous RDO classification eliminated any ground for alleging a demotion.
The proper administrative remedy (e.g., appeal to the Civil Service Commission) was not exhausted by the private respondent before resorting to judicial relief.

Private respondent maintained that his transfer represented a de facto demotion:

His new assignment in Tuguegarao had significantly less revenue capacity compared to San Fernando.
His range of responsibilities and span of control were diminished.

He contended that the RTC’s injunction was necessary to preserve his status quo, despite not having shown any clear legal right to the original assignment.
While the case was pending with the Supreme Court, private respondent filed several motions alleging that:

The Commissioner had initiated administrative proceedings against him for gross insubordination.
He was subject to preventive suspension and later a penalty of suspension for 6 months and 1 day.

The fact that petitioner Alcantara had already assumed office in San Fernando prior to the filing did not negate the claim that status quo needed preservation.

Whether private respondent had a clear legal or vested right to remain in his original assignment in San Fernando, Pampanga.
Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction by the RTC was proper when private respondent’s claim was based solely on an alleged demotion without showing a clear legal right.
Whether the transfer, executed under the authorities of EO No. 132 and RTAO 80-93, constitutes a de facto demotion, given the abolition of the previous classification system.
Whether the failure of the private respondent to exhaust administrative remedies (e.g., appealing to the Civil Service Commission) should render the judicial action premature or subject to dismissal.