Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Gloria vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rustan Frozen
    The respondent, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano, was appointed as the Schools Division Superintendent in Quezon City. In 1994, he was reassigned by the Secretary of Education to be the Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). Dr. Icasiano requested reconsideration of the reassignment but it was denied. He then sought a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals to stop the reassignment, which was initially denied but later granted. The petitioners argued the reassignment was only temporary until a new MIST Superintendent was appointed, but the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that the reassignment appeared to be indefinite based on documents describing Dr. Icasiano

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gloria vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rustan Frozen
    1K views2 pages
    The respondent, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano, was appointed as the Schools Division Superintendent in Quezon City. In 1994, he was reassigned by the Secretary of Education to be the Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). Dr. Icasiano requested reconsideration of the reassignment but it was denied. He then sought a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals to stop the reassignment, which was initially denied but later granted. The petitioners argued the reassignment was only temporary until a new MIST Superintendent was appointed, but the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that the reassignment appeared to be indefinite based on documents describing Dr. Icasiano

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano, was appointed as the Schools Division Superintendent in Quezon City. In 1994, he was reassigned by the Secretary of Education to be the Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). Dr. Icasiano requested reconsideration of the reassignment but it was denied. He then sought a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals to stop the reassignment, which was initially denied but later granted. The petitioners argued the reassignment was only temporary until a new MIST Superintendent was appointed, but the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that the reassignment appeared to be indefinite based on documents describing Dr. Icasiano

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Gloria vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rustan Frozen
    The respondent, Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano, was appointed as the Schools Division Superintendent in Quezon City. In 1994, he was reassigned by the Secretary of Education to be the Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). Dr. Icasiano requested reconsideration of the reassignment but it was denied. He then sought a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals to stop the reassignment, which was initially denied but later granted. The petitioners argued the reassignment was only temporary until a new MIST Superintendent was appointed, but the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that the reassignment appeared to be indefinite based on documents describing Dr. Icasiano

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    THIRD DIVISION

    [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, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND DR. BIENVENIDO A.
    ICASIANO, respondents.
    FACTS:
    On June 29, 1989, private respondent Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed Schools Division
    Superintendent, Division of City Schools, Quezon City, by the then President Corazon C. Aquino.
    On October 10, 1994, petitioner Secretary Gloria recommended to then President Fidel Ramos that the
    petitioner be reassigned as Superintendent of the MIST [Marikina Institute of Science and Technology],
    to fill up the vacuum created by the retirement of its Superintendent, Mr. Bannaoag F. Lauro, on June
    17, 1994. President Ramos approved the recommendation.
    Dr. Icasiano requested Secretary Gloria to reconsider the reassignment, but the latter denied the
    request.
    On October 19, 1994, Dr. Icasiano prayed to the Court of Appeals for the issuance of a Temporary
    Restraining Order (TRO) which was initially denied by the Court of Appeals but subsequently set aside its
    decision and restrained the petitioners from implementing the reassignment.
    Petitioners are now before the Court seeking relief from the decision of the appellate court. They
    contend that the doctrine enunciated in Bentain vs. Court of Appeals -- that "a reassignment that is
    indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status and salary, is in effect, a constructive removal from
    the service" -- does not apply in the present case for the reassignment in question was merely
    temporary, lasting only until the appointment of a new Vocational School Superintendent of MIST.
    [10]

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the reassignment of the private respondent is only temporary, hence, the doctrine
    enunciated in Bentain vs. Court of Appeals is not applicable to the case at bar.
    HELD:
    No. The Court upholds the finding of the respondent court that the reassignment of petitioner to MIST
    "appears to be indefinite". The same can be inferred from the Memorandum of Secretary Gloria for
    President Fidel V. Ramos to the effect that the reassignment of private respondent will "best fit his
    qualifications and experience" being "an expert in vocational and technical education." It can thus be
    gleaned that subject reassignment is more than temporary as the private respondent has been
    described as fit for the (reassigned) job, being an expert in the field. Besides, there is nothing in the said
    [11]

    Memorandum to show that the reassignment of private respondent is temporary or would only last
    until a permanent replacement is found as no period is specified or fixed; which fact evinces an
    intention on the part of petitioners to reassign private respondent with no definite period or duration.
    Such feature of the reassignment in question is definitely violative of the security of tenure of the
    private respondent.

    You might also like