Title
Gloria vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 119903
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2000
Dr. Icasiano's indefinite reassignment as Schools Division Superintendent was ruled a violation of his security of tenure, constituting constructive removal, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119903)

Factual Background

Dr. Bienvenido A. Icasiano was appointed as Schools Division Superintendent for Quezon City by President Corazon C. Aquino in 1989. In 1994, Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria recommended that Dr. Icasiano be reassigned to the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology to fill a vacancy. This recommendation was approved by the President and communicated to Dr. Icasiano on October 14, 1994. Despite requesting reconsideration of this reassignment, the Secretary denied his request. Dr. Icasiano filed a petition for prohibition on October 19, 1994.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Court of Appeals initially denied Dr. Icasiano's request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on October 26, 1994, but later issued a TRO that restrained the petitioners from enforcing the reassignment on November 22, 1994. The appellate court subsequently set a hearing for a preliminary injunction and ultimately issued a decision on March 28, 1995, declaring the reassignment to violate Dr. Icasiano's right to security of tenure.

Legal Issues Raised

The main issue determined by the Court concerned whether the reassignment of Dr. Icasiano constituted a violation of his security of tenure. Petitioners argued that there was no breach, while Dr. Icasiano asserted that the reassignment was indefinite and arbitrary.

Court of Appeals Rationale

The Court of Appeals asserted that the reassignment lacked a fixed duration or objective purpose, which signified that it was indeed indefinite. The recommendation indicating Dr. Icasiano’s qualifications implied that the reassignment was not temporary, further indicating a violation of the constitutional protection of security of tenure.

Presidential Immunity Controversy

Petitioners contended that the decision questioned an act of the President and was thus subject to presidential immunity from suit. However, the Court clarified that the actions in question were those of the petitioners in carrying out the reassignment, not a direct challenge to a presidential act. Claims of grave abuse of discretion by administrative bodies warrant judicial review in instances where the actions taken infringe upon the rights provided under the Constitution.

Invocation of Relevant Jurisprudence

Petitioners cited the case of Bentain vs. Court of Appeals, which established that indefinite reassignment resulting in a reduction of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.