Vinzons-Chato v.

Natividad
G.R. No. 113843
June 2, 1995
J. Mendoza
Cadorna
Hon.
Liwayway
Vinzons-Chato,
in
her
capacity
as
Commissioner
of
Internal
Revenue,
petitioners
and Solon B. Alcantara
responden Hon. Eli G.C. Natividad, Presiding Judge of Branch 48, Regional Trial Court of San
ts Fernando, Pampanga, and Salvador Nori B. Blas

summary The CIR implemented reassignments that affected herein private respondent,

pursuant to a streamlining project involving the BIR. The private respondent

said that his reassignment=demotion because he was transferred to a smaller
revenue district. SC held that there was no such demotion because as stated in
the Revenue Admin. Order that redefined the areas of jurisdiction and
renumbered the regional district offices (RDOs), as well as abolished the
previous classification of RDOs, all RDOs are now treated as the same class.
There being no legal right on the part of private respondent to the post he
originally occupied in his original RDO, injunction does not lie.

facts of the case

Pursuant to the issuance of EO 132 (Approving the Streamlining of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue) by President FVR, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (LVC) issued Revenue Admin.
Order No. 5-93, which redefined the areas of jurisdiction and renumbered the regional
district offices (RDOs), as well as abolished the previous classification of RDOs and
henceforth treated all as the same class. Following this, LVC, citing exigencies of the
revenue service, directed 90 RD officers to report to new assignments in the redesignated and
renumbered RDOs nationwide.
Private respondent Blas was among those affected by such reassignment. He was ordered to
report to RD 14 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, while petitioner Alcantara was ordered to report to Blas
former post in San Fernando, Pampanga, now known as RD 21.
Blas questioned the above reassignment, arguing that it constituted demotion since he
was transferred from the larger RD in San Fernando, Pampanga (formerly a Class A RDO) to the
smaller one in Tuguegarao (formerly a Class C RDO). (Model employee ako haller?! Tsaka ang
layo ng Tuguegarao eh may JABETIS AKO!).
Thus, Blas filed a complaint for injunctive relief with the RTC contesting the same. He invoked
Sec. 2 of EO 132, which stated that: redeployment of officials and other personnel on the basis
of the streamlining embodied in this Executive Order shall not result inthe diminution of rank
and compensation.
The RTC granted the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction; thus, petitioners are now before
the SC to contest such Order upon the following grounds:
1. Blas did not show that he had a right which was violated as a result of the reassignment.
2. The transfer was made pursuant to EO 132, and this being so, it should not be considered
disciplinary in nature (as would require Blas consent); it was done in the interest of public
service.
3. Blas did not have any vested right to his station in San Fernando, Pampanga since he was
only designated to the post and not appointed thereto. Neither did he show any right to be
exempted from the reorganization.
4. There was no demotion since there was no reduction in duties, responsibilities, status,
rank, or salary; the old RDO classes were already abolished so pantay-pantay kayo lahat
anubeh?
5. Blas failed to exhaust administrative remedies since it did not appeal to the CSC first.
1

6. The issue is moot and academic since petitioner Alcantara took his post as RD officer
before the action below was filed.

issues

1. WON the reassignment in this case constituted demotion NO.

2. WON the RTC erred in issuing injunctive relief YES.
3. WON there was failure to exhaust admin remedies YES.

ratio

(1) There was no demotion in this case.

Blas transfer to the Tuguegarao RD, did not really entail any diminution in rank,
salary, status and responsibilities. His claim that the Tuguegarao revenue district is smaller
than that in San Fernando, Pampanga has no basis because, as already noted, the classification
of RDOs into Class A-1, A, B, C and D has been abolished and all RDOs are now considered to be
of the same class.
Blas transfer is part of a nationwide reshuffle or reassignment of revenue district
officers designed to improve revenue collection. More specifically the objective of the
reassignment, as stated in Revenue Administrative Order No. 5-93, is to strengthen the
decentralization of the Bureau's set-up for the purpose of maximizing tax assessments and
revenue collections, intensifying enforcement of revenue laws and regulations and bringing the
revenue service closer to the taxpaying public.
It could be that private respondent is being transferred to a revenue district which he claims
has less revenue capacity than San Fernando, Pampanga, precisely to improve the capacity of
the new assignment. His new assignment should therefore be considered by him a challenge to
his leadership as revenue district officer rather than a demotion or a penalty.
Blas failed to show patent illegality in the action of LVC 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.
(2) There being no clear legal right to be protected or that has been violated on the
part of Blas, issuance of the injunctive relief by the RTC was improper.
As stated above, there is no basis in Blas contention that he was demoted. Neither was it
alleged that he had a vested right to his post as RD officer of RD 21 (formerly 18) in San
Fernando, Pampanga.
The trial court's order granting the writ of preliminary injunction cites no right of Blas which
might have been violated as a result of his unconsented transfer to Tuguegarao. The only reason
given for the writ of preliminary injunction is that it is needed to preserve the status quo until the
issues can be threshed out in full blown trial; however the preservation of the status quo is not
alone sufficient to justify the issuance of an injunction. The plaintiff must show that he has a
clear legal right; that such right has been violated; and that he is entitled to the relief he
demands, consisting in restraining the commission of the acts complained of.
In granting an injunction despite the absence of any legal right to be protected, the RTC
committed a grave abuse of its discretion.
(3) The case should have also been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Under the law, any employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the
CSC. For Blas failure to do so, the RTC shouldve dismissed the action on that ground.
2