Vinzons-Chato v ZenorosaG.R. No. 120539. October 20, 2000

Facts: On March 22, 1995, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, then Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 8-95. Pursuant thereto, private respondent Estrella V. Martinez, along with others, was reassigned from Assistant Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 34 - Paco - Pandacan - San Andres -Sta. Ana area - to Assistant Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office in Quezon City, and assigned in her place, as Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34 was Jacinto T. Marcelo, erroneously referred to as Juanito T. Marcelo in RTAO 8-95. On account of such reassignment, private respondent filed on April 4, 1995, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, a petition for injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 95-23498 with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, to restrain petitioner Marcelo from assuming the post of Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34.

ISSUE: Whether or not a mere reorganization of the BIR officers woulf violate their security of tenure?

Ruling: No,The reassignment of revenue officers entails the prevention of familiarity and patronage between Bureau of Internal Revenue officers and taxpayers of a particular area. Private respondent holds the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II and such appointment will not be altered by her subsequent reassignment as Assistant Division Chief of the Collection Programs Division, National Office. Such reassignment is not a demotion for there is no diminution of rank, salary, status and responsibilities. Private respondent was merely assigned as Assistant Revenue District Officer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 34 and the Commissioner may assign or reassign revenue officers, as the exigencies of the service may require. Such reassignment of revenue officers entails the prevention of familiarity and patronage between BIR officers and taxpayers of a particular area. Accordingly, the injunction issued against the implementation of RTAO 8-95 was unwarranted because private respondent failed to establish a valid claim or a vested right to the post of Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34. Therefore, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction because private respondent has no actual existing right which is infringed upon by RTAO No. 8-95. the petition is hereby GRANTED and the order dated May 18, 1995 of respondent judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

De Guzman v. Comelec G.R. No. 129118 (July 19, 2000)

Facts: At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, assailing the validity of Section 44 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) otherwise known as "The Voters Registration Act of 1996".RA 8189 was enacted on June 10, 1996 and approved by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 11, 1996. Section 44 thereof provides:"SEC. 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. - No Election Officer shall hold office in a particular city or municipality for more than four (4) years. Any election officer who, either at the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent thereto, has served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the original congressional district."

By virtue of the aforequoted provision of law, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution Nos. 97-00021 and 97-06102for the implementation thereof. Thereafter, the COMELEC issued several directivesre assigning the petitioners, who are either City or Municipal Election Officers, to different stations. Petitioner’s contentions revolve on the pivotal issue, whether Section 44 of RA 8189 is valid and constitutional.

Issue: Does the Voters Registration at of 1996 is in violation of the Security of Tenure provided in the Constitution.

Ruling: No,The singling out of election officers in order to "ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment" does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The rule that outlaws unconsented transfers as anathema to security of tenure applies only to an officer who is appointed - not merely assigned - to a particular station. Such a rule does not proscribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that empowers the head of an agency to periodically reassign the employees and officers in order to improve the service of the agency. The guarantee of security of tenure under the Constitution is not a guarantee of perpetual employment. It only means that an employee cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from the service for causes other than those provided by law and after due process is accorded the employee. What it seeks to prevent is capricious exercise of the power to dismiss. But, where it is the law-making authority itself which furnishes the ground for the transfer of a class of employees, no such capriciousness can be raised for so long as the remedy proposed to cure a perceived evil is germane to the purposes of the law. The independence of the COMELEC is not at issue here. There is no impairment or emasculation of its power to appoint its own officials and employees. In fact, Section 44 even strengthens the COMELECs power of appointment, as the power to reassign or transfer is within its exclusive jurisdiction and domain.WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED; and the constitutionality and validity of Section 44 of RA 8189 UPHELD.