Vinzons-Chato vs. Zenorosa

A public officer holding a permanent appointment has no vested right to a specific station or assignment; a reassignment that does not result in demotion in rank, salary, or status is a valid exercise of administrative prerogative and cannot be enjoined for want of a clear legal right.

Private respondent Estrella V. Martinez was an Assistant Revenue District Officer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 34 (Paco‑Pandacan‑San Andres‑Sta. Ana) by assignment, while holding the permanent appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II. When the Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 retired, that retiree endorsed Martinez for promotion to the vacant Revenue District Officer post. Instead, then‑Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons‑Chato designated another employee, Isidro Tecson Jr., to the position. Martinez protested first before the BIR Selection Board and later before the Department of Finance Grievance Committee, which recommended adherence to the merit promotion plan. Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8‑95, reassigning several officials — including Martinez — from their current stations. Martinez viewed the order as retaliation and filed a petition for injunction in the Regional Trial Court, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

• The Parties: Petitioner Liwayway Vinzons‑Chato was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; petitioner Jacinto T. Marcelo was the officer assigned to replace private respondent. Private respondent Estrella V. Martinez held the permanent appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II and was assigned as Assistant Revenue District Officer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 34 in Manila.

• The Recommendation and the Protest: Upon the impending retirement of Revenue District Officer Jose T. Jacalan of RDO No. 34, Jacalan endorsed Martinez for promotion to the vacant Revenue District Officer post, citing her qualifications and next‑in‑rank status. Instead, Commissioner Chato designated Isidro Tecson Jr. as Revenue District Officer. Martinez protested the designation, initially before the BIR Selection Board, and then before the Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance. On July 10, 1995, the Grievance Committee resolved that the BIR should adhere to its CSC‑approved merit promotion plan. The Commissioner did not adopt that resolution; in the interim, the Civil Service Commission had issued Resolution No. 95‑0785 on February 9, 1995, dismissing Martinez’s protest against Tecson’s designation.

• The Reassignment Order: On March 22, 1995, the Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8‑95, reassigning several BIR personnel. Martinez was reassigned from Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 to Assistant Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office in Quezon City. Her relief post was filled by petitioner Jacinto T. Marcelo (mistakenly named Juanito T. Marcelo in the order). Martinez viewed the reassignment as an act of retaliation for having complained against Tecson’s designation, and as a demotion because the new assignment involved collection functions alien to her expertise in assessment, allegedly placing her in a “freezer position.”

• The Injunction Case: On April 4, 1995, Martinez filed a petition for injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q‑95‑23498), seeking to enjoin the implementation of RTAO 8‑95 as it concerned her and Marcelo. She argued that the reassignment was a demotion and dislocation prohibited by Executive Order No. 132, and was issued in bad faith. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on April 28, 1995, and on May 18, 1995, granted a writ of preliminary injunction upon a ₱50,000 bond. The trial court found that unless enjoined, Martinez would suffer great and irreparable injury if the reassignment were later declared illegal.

• Subsequent Events: After the Supreme Court issued a TRO against the trial court’s order on July 31, 1995, Martinez refused to comply with RTAO 8‑95 and went on leave. The BIR later suspended her for one month for gross insubordination. Martinez’s motion to cite Commissioner Chato in contempt was denied by the Court.

• Validity of Reassignment: Petitioners maintained that the reassignment was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s authority under Executive Order No. 132 and civil service rules to assign and reassign personnel as the exigencies of the service require, particularly to improve revenue collection and reorganize the BIR.

• No Vested Right: Petitioners argued that private respondent had no legal or vested right to remain as Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 because she held only an assignment to that station; her permanent appointment as Chief Revenue Officer II remained unchanged.

• No Demotion: The reassignment involved no demotion: it carried no reduction in rank, salary, status, or responsibilities, and the fact that the new post was not to private respondent’s personal liking was immaterial.

• No Basis for Injunction: Because no clear legal right was violated, the preliminary injunction was unwarranted and the trial court’s issuance constituted grave abuse of discretion.

• Bad Faith and Retaliation: Private respondent contended that RTAO 8‑95 was issued in reprisal for her protest against the designation of Tecson, and the reassignment was intended to harass and punish her.

• Demotion and Dislocation: She argued that the transfer from assessment work to the Collection Programs Division was a demotion, as it placed her in a “freezer position” totally alien to her proven expertise, thereby violating Executive Order No. 132’s prohibition against transfers resulting in dislocation.

• Violation of Merit Promotion Plan: She invoked the Grievance Committee resolution that the BIR should adhere to its CSC‑approved merit promotion plan, and claimed that instead of obeying, the Commissioner issued the assailed order.

• Right to Injunction: Private respondent asserted that she had a clear right to the post, given the next‑in‑rank recommendation, and that irreparable injury would result if the reassignment were implemented.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction despite the absence of a clear legal right on the part of private respondent.

• Demotion and Security of Tenure: Whether the reassignment constituted a demotion in rank, salary, or status that would violate private respondent’s security of tenure and justify injunctive relief.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The writ of preliminary injunction was unwarranted because private respondent failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to enjoin the reassignment. She held the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II, and her specific station as Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 was merely an assignment that could be changed by the Commissioner as the exigencies of the service required. Without a vested right to the post, no basis existed for injunctive relief; consequently, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

• Demotion and Security of Tenure: The reassignment did not amount to a demotion. There was no diminution in rank, salary, status, or responsibilities; private respondent’s appointment as Chief Revenue Officer II remained intact and unaffected. The Supreme Court, citing Vinzons‑Chato v. Natividad, reiterated that a public officer cannot claim a violation of security of tenure simply because a new assignment is not to her liking; to hold otherwise would subordinate government service to individual preference and run counter to the principle that a public office is a public trust.

• No Vested Right to Assignment — A public officer holding a permanent appointment has no vested right to a particular station or assignment. The reassignment of an officer or employee is within the administrative prerogative of the appointing authority, provided there is no demotion in rank or salary. In this case, the Court ruled that no clear legal right was violated because Martinez held only an assignment, not a property interest in the specific post.

• Security of Tenure and Reassignment — Security of tenure is not breached by a reassignment that does not reduce rank, salary, status, or responsibilities. The fact that the new assignment does not suit the officer’s personal preference or expertise is insufficient to characterize the transfer as a demotion. The Commissioner’s authority to reassign BIR personnel for the exigency of the service, without demotion, was upheld.

• “Private respondent failed to show patent illegality in the action of the Commissioner constituting violation of his right to security of tenure. To sustain his contention that his transfer constitutes a demotion simply because the new assignment is not to his liking would be to subordinate government projects, along with the great resources and efforts they entail, to the individual preferences and opinions of civil service employees. Such contention would negate the principle that a public office is a public trust and that it is not the private preserve of any person.” — Quoted and applied from Vinzons‑Chato v. Natividad, this passage defines the controlling standard for reassignment of civil servants.

• “The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to assign or reassign internal revenue officers and employees of the BIR as the exigencies of service may require, without demotion in rank and salary in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulation.” — The Court states the source and limits of the Commissioner’s reassignment power.

• Vinzons‑Chato v. Natividad, 244 SCRA 787 (1995) — An En Banc decision that upheld the Commissioner’s authority to reassign BIR personnel and held that a transfer not to the employee’s liking does not amount to a demotion or violate security of tenure. The Court followed and reinforced this precedent, applying its ratio to the instant facts.

• Executive Order No. 132, s. 1993 — The Executive Order authorized the reorganization of the BIR to enhance revenue collection, including the power to reassign personnel. The private respondent invoked the order’s prohibition against transfer resulting in dislocation; the Court found no demotion and no violation.

• Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations — The Commissioner’s authority to assign and reassign officers without demotion in rank and salary was affirmed as consistent with civil service rules.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred.