Bentain v. CAG.R. No. 89452FACTS:Bentain holds a permanent appointment as Chief Security Officer of the U.P. Diliman Police. Meanwhile, then U.P. President Angara issued A.O No. 46 reassigning Bentain to the Office of the U.P. President. Later, through verbal instructions of the University Secretary Gregorio, Bentain was transferred to the Office of the Vice President for Administration until finally he was indefinitely re-assigned in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs. Bentain wrote several letters /petitions to U.P. officers concerned, all praying for reinstatement to his original position in the U.P. Police Force, but to no avail. ISSUE: Whether or not Bentains's indefinite detail or reassignment constitutes a violation of his right to security of tenure.RULING:Security of tenure is 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. While a temporary transfer or assignment personnel is permissible even without the employee's 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. A reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status and salary, is, in effect, a constructive removal from the service.

Chato v. NatividadG.R. No. 113843FACTS:To enforce the mandate of E.O. No 132 which requires a nationwide reshuffling or re-assignment of revenue district officers to improve revenue collection, BIR Commisioner Chato, citing exigencies of revenue services, issued RTAO 80-93 directing RDO Blas to report to RDO No. 14 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan from his present assignment in RDO No. 21 in San Fernando, Pampanga. Aggrieved, Blas wrote Chato, arguing that his transfer from a larger revenue district of San Fernando, Pampanga to a smaller revenue district in Tuguegarao, Cagayan would cause his "dislocation" and demotion or "a diminution in rank, status, and span of duties and responsibilities." Chato explained that the transfer was made pursuant to E.O. No. 132, and this being so, neither was the transfer a demotion, since there was no reduction in duties, responsibilities, status, rank, or salary. ISSUE:Whether or not the re-assignment constitute demotion in violation of constitutional guaranty of security of tenure.RULING:Indeed, RDO 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 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." To sustain Blas 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.

PLM v. CSCG.R. No. 107590FACTS:The sixteen (16) Faculty members were full-time instructors of PLM under "temporary contracts" of employment renewable on a yearly basis. These instructors had many long-standing issues with the PLM Management, one of which is the issue on regularization. Desirous to see changes in the PLM Management, a faculty organization -- the PLMFO -- was organized. Instead of taking heed on the reasonable demands of PLMFO, PLM however terminated their contract by not renewing their appointments for the next school year. The dismissed Faculty charged PLM before CSC for unfair labor practice. Finding guilty of the charges, CSC ordered PLM to reinstate the dismissed Faculty. PLM faulted CSC on its resolution ordering the instructors reinstatement. ISSUE:Whether or not the scheme of PLM by not renewing the instructors employment contract constitute ULP.RULING:Even temporary employees enjoy that basic right to form organization or association for purposes not contrary to law. PLMFO is that organization. Thus, its members cannot be separated from the service for the simple reason of membership in the said organization. When the clear intent therefore of PLM Management in terminating the services of these employees is to abridge their constitutional right to self-organization, the Commission has the duty to give them protection and uphold their basic right. This constitutional right of employees is superior to the right of management not to renew the temporary appointment of its employees. When the exercise of discretion by the management is calculated to bust the union as what PLM Management had done, the Commission has no choice but to declare it as a grave abuse of discretion.10

Cario v. DaoasG.R. No. 144493FACTS:Cario was appointed Accountant III in the National Commission for Indigenous People Region I office. Later, Regional Director Bistoyong re-assigned Cario to NCIP Region II office. Dissatisfied with the order of re-assignment, Cario inquired with the CSC Regional Director regarding the propriety and legality of her reassignment which, opined by the CSC Regional Director, was found to be not in order. RD Bistoyong appealed to the CSC. Pending appeal, RD Bistoyong reprimanded Cario for her failure to report at the Region II office and is considered AWOL, but Cario continued to report for work in Region I. With her AWOL exceeding 30 days, NCIP Executive Director Atty. Daoas issued an Order of Separation informing Cario of her being dropped from the rolls.ISSUE:Whether or not the Carios re-assignment which eventually leads to here termination was valid.RULING:It is true that the transfer or detail of a public officer or employee is a prerogative of the appointing authority4and that it can be done as the exigencies of the public service may require.5As such, this Court in a number of cases allowed the reassignment of personnel but in such instances, they were not appointed to a specific station or particular unit or agency.6The rule proscribes transfers without consent of officers appointed - not merely assigned - to a particular station,7such as in the case of Cario who was appointed as Accountant III in Region I. Hence, she could not be reassigned to another station or region without her consent. Otherwise, the unconsented transfer would amount to a removal.8

Pastor v. City of Pasig G.R. No. 146873FACTS:Pastor is a permanent appointee as the Budget Officer of the City of Pasig. In 1992, she was reassigned to the Office of the City Administrator pending investigation of reports against her concerning the issuance of Advice of Allotments by her. In 1995, after three years with no case filed against her, she asked for reinstatement to her former position. But she was instead reassigned to another unit of the now city government. Upon her complaint, the Civil Service Commission ordered her reinstatement as Budget Officer of the City of Pasig. However, on appeal of the city government, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).ISSUE:Whether or not Pastors indefinite re-assignment amounts to removal in violation of the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure.RULING:A reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status, and salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service.21 There is no question that we recognize the validity and indispensable necessity of the well established rule that for the good of public service and whenever public interest demands, [a] public official may be temporarily assigned or detailed to other duties even over his objection without necessarily violating his fundamental and legal rights to security of tenure in the civil service. But such cannot be undertaken when the transfer of the employee is with a view to his removal and "if the transfer is resorted to as a scheme to lure the employee away from his permanent position" because "such attitude is improper as it would in effect result in a circumvention of the prohibition which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the civil service."

CSC v. DBM G.R No. 158791FACTS:The 2002 GAA had appropriated the amount ofP 285,660,790.44 for CSC Central Office. The CSC, however, complained that the total fund released by DBM to its Central Office during the fiscal year 2002 was onlyP279,853,398.14, thereby leaving an unreleased balance of P5,807,392.30. The DBM proffered at any rate that the delay in releasing the balance of CSCs budget was not on account of any failure on CSCs part to submit the required reports; rather, it was due to a shortfall in revenues. ISSUE:Whether or not the delay by DBM in releasing the balance of CSCs budget defeats the latters enjoyment of fiscal autonomy.RULING:Article IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution provides: The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. Furthermore, the Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy to CSC. To hold that CSC may be subjected to withholding or reduction of funds in the event of a revenue shortfall would, to that extent, place CSC and the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy on equal footing with all others which are not granted the same autonomy, thereby reducing to naught the distinction established by the Constitution. The agencies which the Constitution has vested with fiscal autonomy should thus be given priority in the release of their approved appropriations over all other agencies not similarly vested when there is a revenue shortfall.

People v. IntingG.R. No. 88919FACTS:After a finding a prima facie case, the COMELEC, through Prov. Election Supervisor Atty. Lituanas, charged Tanjay OIC Mayor Regalado for violation of election laws. The judge issued a warrant of arrest. However, before the accused could be arrested the judge set aside his order warrant of arrest on the ground that the COMELEC is not authorized to determine probable cause. The court stated that it "will give due course to the information filed in this caseif the same has the written approval of the Provincial Fiscalafter which the prosecution of the case shall be under the supervision and control of the latter." The COMELEC failed to comply with the order which prompt the trial court to quash the information.ISSUE:Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it quashed the information?RULING:The 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not only to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws. This means that the COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC. Hence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor files an information charging an election offense or prosecutes a violation of election law, it is because he has been deputized by the COMELEC. He does not do so under the sole authority of his office.