G.R. No. 119903.

August 15, 2000

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, Petitioners, v. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS AND DR. BIENVENIDO A. ICASIANO, Respondents.

Facts:

✓ In 1989, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed by Pres. Cory Aquino as Schools Division
Superintendent of Quezon City. In 1994, upon recommendation of DECS Secretary Ricardo
T. Gloria, Icasiano was reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and
Technology (MIST) to fill up the vacuum created by the retirement of its Superintendent in 1994.
Pres. Ramos approved the recommendation.
✓ Sec. Gloria transmitted a copy of the recommendation to Director Rosas for implementation.
Icasiano filed a TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction enjoining the implementation of his
reassignment. The Court of Appeals granted the petition holding that the indefinite
reassignment is violative of Icasiano’s right to security of tenure.
✓ The Sec. Gloria argued that the filing of the case is improper because the same attacks an act of
the President, in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit.

Issues: Whether or not heads of executive department can invoke the president’s immunity from suit.

Held:

No. Even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the President, he cannot invoke the President’s immunity
from suit in a case filed against him because the questioned acts are not the acts of the President but
merely those of a department Secretary. Furthermore, presidential decisions may be questioned before
the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction.

Having found the reassignment of private respondent to the MIST to be violative of his security of tenure,
the order for his reassignment to the MIST cannot be countenanced. CA decision affirmed. (Ricardo T.
Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903. August 15, 2000)

"Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of our civil service. The
mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause but also to cases of
unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal removals (Department of Education, Culture and
Sports vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 555; Ibanez vs. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 1002; Brillantes vs. Guevarra,
27 SCRA 138).

While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employees prior
consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or is a scheme to
lure him away from his permanent position, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his
resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of
office of those who are in the Civil Service (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 651; Garcia vs. Lejano, 109 Phil.
116)."12