Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. Court of Appeals

A public school principal appointed without reference to a particular station has no security of tenure in any specific school and may be reassigned in the exigencies of the service without her consent; such reassignment does not violate the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. An employee who believes a transfer lacks justification must appeal to the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 before seeking judicial relief.

Gloria V. Navarro was a public school principal in Quezon City; Edna V. Azurin was the Schools Division Superintendent, Anastacio C. Ramento the Regional Director, and Onofre D. Corpuz the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. The dispute turns on the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, R.A. No. 4670, particularly Section 6 on consent for transfer, and on the Civil Service Decree, P.D. No. 807, which allows an employee who believes a transfer lacks justification to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. MEC Circular No. 26, Series of 1972 set a policy of transferring school officials after five years in one station.

On January 1, 1981, Gloria V. Navarro was appointed Secondary School Principal II in the Division of City Schools, District II, Quezon City, Ministry of Education and Culture, National Capital Region, with compensation at the rate of Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six Pesos (P18,636.00) per annum, effective January 1, 1981. Her appointment did not refer to any particular school. For some years, her station as high school principal was at Carlos Albert High School.

Sometime in 1982, Edna B. Azurin, in her capacity as Schools Division Superintendent of Quezon City, effected a reshuffling of all high school principals in Quezon City in the exigencies of the service, as all of the principals had been overstaying in one station for more than five years. As a result, Navarro was reassigned from Carlos Albert High School to Manuel Roxas High School without demotion in rank nor diminution in salary. On August 25, 1982, Navarro wrote a letter to Azurin requesting reconsideration of her transfer or reassignment and citing her achievements as an administrator of Carlos Albert High School as her reason. Azurin denied the request, explaining that Navarro's new assignment was made in the exigencies of the service and precisely in recognition of her capabilities as school administrator, and that since Navarro had already spent ten years as principal in Carlos Albert High School, she was advised to consider her new assignment as a challenge to accomplish new and bigger projects for Manuel Roxas High School. Despite the denial, Navarro gave notice to Azurin that she would not comply with her new assignment allegedly because the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers states that no principal/teacher could be transferred without her consent and that the reasons for her transfer were not plausible.

Navarro appealed to Regional Director Anastacio C. Ramento, who rendered a Decision on October 6, 1982 holding that the transfer was proper and in accord with law as it was done in the exigencies of the service. Still dissatisfied, Navarro appealed to Minister Onofre D. Corpuz in a letter dated October 15, 1982. In a Resolution dated November 11, 1982, Minister Corpuz denied the appeal, holding that the transfer was proper and lawful since it is the prerogative of the superintendent to reassign personnel in his division in the exigencies of the service, and considering that Navarro's appointment did not state any specific school, her transfer could be effected without violating the law and rule on transfer. Despite the resolution, Navarro refused to comply with the lawful directive of her superior. Without elevating the matter to the Civil Service Commission for exhaustion of administrative remedies, Navarro immediately filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction against Azurin, Ramento, and Corpuz before the RTC of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Special Civil Action No. Q-37025 and assigned to Judge Ricardo Tensuan.

The factual matters material to the SC's analysis were that Navarro had been assigned as principal of Carlos Albert High School for more than ten years; her appointment as Secondary School Principal II did not refer to any particular station or school; her reassignment to Manuel Roxas High School was without demotion in rank nor diminution in salary; and the reasons for the reassignment were stated and made known to her. Azurin's letter stated that the reassignment was in the exigencies of the service and was a recognition of Navarro's capabilities as administrator, and the administrative resolutions held that the transfer was proper because Navarro's appointment did not specify a school.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Petitioners maintained that Navarro was not entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction and that her action deserved outright dismissal because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Validity of Reassignment: Petitioners argued that Navarro's reassignment was made in the exigencies of the service and did not constitute demotion in rank and salary, hence was not in violation of R.A. No. 4670.
• MEC Circular Policy: Petitioners invoked MEC Circular No. 28, series of 1962, which directed transfer or reassignment after service of more than five years in one station to avoid the teacher's becoming stale or unchallenged and to avoid over-fraternization with associates which could be detrimental to the service.

• Consent for Transfer: Respondent maintained that under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, no principal/teacher could be transferred without her consent and that the reasons for her transfer were not plausible.

• Validity of Reassignment: Whether Navarro's reassignment from Carlos Albert High School to Manuel Roxas High School is valid despite her lack of consent, given that her appointment as Secondary School Principal II did not specify a particular station.
• Magna Carta for Public School Teachers: Whether the reassignment violates Section 6 of R.A. No. 4670, which provides that except for cause and as otherwise provided, no teacher shall be transferred without consent.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether Navarro's failure to appeal her transfer to the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 before filing the RTC petition rendered her without cause of action.

• Validity of Reassignment: Yes. Navarro's appointment as Secondary School Principal II did not specify a station, so she had no security of tenure in Carlos Albert High School and could be reassigned without her consent.
• Magna Carta for Public School Teachers: No. The reassignment did not violate Section 6 of R.A. No. 4670 because it was made in the exigencies of the service, without demotion in rank or diminution in salary, and for reasons that were not whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Yes. Navarro failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing her transfer to the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 before filing the RTC petition, so she had no cause of action.

• Validity of Reassignment: The consent requirement in Section 6 of R.A. No. 4670 applies where the teacher is appointed, not merely assigned, to a particular station. The SC relied on Ibanez vs. Commission on Elections and Brillantes vs. Guevarra for the rule that security of tenure against unconsented transfer depends on the nature of the appointment. Navarro's appointment as Secondary School Principal II stated only that she was appointed in the Division of City Schools, District II, Quezon City, without reference to any particular school. Her assignment to Carlos Albert High School could not have been intended to let her stay there permanently; otherwise, her appointment would have so stated. Under Bongbong vs. Parado, she could be assigned to any station and was not entitled to stay permanently at any specific school. Thus, she had no security of tenure in Carlos Albert High School and could be reassigned without her consent.
• Magna Carta for Public School Teachers: Section 6 of R.A. No. 4670 allows transfer without consent when exigencies of the service require it, provided the school superintendent notifies the teacher of the transfer and the reasons therefor. Azurin's letter of August 12, 1982 stated that Navarro's reassignment was in the exigencies of the service and was a recognition of her capabilities as administrator; it advised her to view the new assignment as a challenge to accomplish new and bigger projects for Manuel Roxas High School. The reassignment resulted from a reshuffling of all principals in Quezon City public high schools pursuant to MEC Circular No. 26, Series of 1972, which set a policy of transferring school officials after five years in one station to avoid staleness, lack of challenge, and over-fraternization. Navarro had been principal at Carlos Albert High School for more than ten years, so she was ripe for reassignment. The reasons were not whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary. Maderazo Jr. vs. Baylon was not applicable because there the district supervisor was transferred without the reason being stated and was already 61 years old and due to retire; here the reason for Navarro's reassignment was stated and made known to her. There was therefore no violation of the Magna Carta.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Under Section 24(c) of P.D. No. 807, a transfer not disciplinary and made in the interest of public service requires that the employee be informed of the reasons; if the employee believes there is no justification, the employee may appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Navarro did not elevate the matter of her transfer to the Civil Service Commission before filing Special Civil Action No. Q-37025. By not appealing to the CSC, she failed to exhaust administrative remedies and was without cause of action.

• Appointment vs. Assignment; Security of Tenure — Security of tenure against unconsented transfer protects an officer appointed to a particular station, not one merely assigned to it. Navarro's appointment did not specify a school, so she had no right to remain at Carlos Albert High School and could be reassigned.
• Exigencies of the Service as Ground for Transfer — Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 4670, a teacher may be transferred without consent when exigencies of the service require it, after notice of the transfer and its reasons. The SC found the reassignment valid because it followed a policy of reshuffling principals after five years in one station, was without demotion or salary diminution, and rested on reasons not whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Appeal to the Civil Service Commission — An employee who believes a transfer lacks justification must appeal to the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 before seeking judicial relief. Navarro's failure to do so rendered her RTC petition without cause of action.
• Maderazo Jr. vs. Baylon Distinction — The Maderazo ruling does not apply where the reason for the transfer is stated and the employee is not near retirement. In Navarro's case, the reason was made known to her, unlike the district supervisor in Maderazo who was transferred without a stated reason and was already 61 years old and due to retire.

• "The rule pursued by plaintiff only goes so far as the appointment indicates a specification. Otherwise, the constitutionally ordained security of tenure cannot shield her." — The SC uses this to explain that the consent requirement applies only where the appointment specifies a station.
• "The appointment of Navarro as principal does not refer to any particular station or school. As such, she could be assigned to any station and she is not entitled to stay permanently at any specific school." — The SC applies the appointment-versus-assignment rule to Navarro.
• "In the case at bar, the reasons given by Azurin in recommending Navarro's reassignment were far from whimsical, capricious or arbitrary. Navarro had been assigned as principal of Carlos Albert High School for more than ten (10) years. She was ripe for reassignment." — The SC finds the exigencies of the service and the reasons for the reassignment valid.
• "By not appealing her case to the Civil Service Commission before filing Special Civil Action No. Q-37025, respondent Navarro is indubitably without cause of action." — The SC holds that failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars the petition.

• Maderazo Jr. vs. Baylon, 128 SCRA 440 — Distinguished; the SC held it inapplicable because the transfer there was without a stated reason and the employee was 61 years old and due to retire, circumstances absent in Navarro's case.
• Ibanez vs. Commission on Elections, 1967 Phil. 257, 264, L-26558, April 27, 1967 — Relied on for the rule that security of tenure against unconsented transfer depends on whether the officer is appointed, not merely assigned, to a particular station.
• Brillantes vs. Guevarra, 27 SCRA 138, 143 — Followed; quoted to show that a principal appointed without a stated station cannot claim security of tenure in a particular school and may be assigned as exigencies require.
• Bongbong vs. Parado, 57 SCRA 623 — Cited to support that Navarro, whose appointment did not refer to any particular station, could be assigned to any station and was not entitled to stay permanently at a specific school.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) — Provides that except for cause and as otherwise provided, no teacher shall be transferred without consent; when exigencies require transfer, the school superintendent may effect it after notifying the teacher of the transfer and the reasons, and the teacher may appeal to the Director. The SC applied it by holding that the consent requirement did not apply because Navarro's appointment did not specify a station, and that the transfer was valid under the exigencies of the service.
• Section 24(c), Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) — Defines transfer and provides that a transfer not disciplinary and made in the interest of public service requires the employee to be informed of the reasons; if the employee believes there is no justification, the employee may appeal to the Civil Service Commission. The SC applied it by holding that Navarro's failure to appeal to the CSC rendered her without cause of action.
• MEC Circular No. 26, Series of 1972 — Sets the Ministry of Education policy that principals, district supervisors, academic supervisors, general education supervisors, school administrative officers, and superintendents are to be transferred upon completion of five years of service in one station. The SC used it to support the finding that Navarro's reassignment was in the exigencies of the service.