IGNACIO v CSC Facts: Dr. Leonora B.

Ignacio was the Division Superintendent of Public Schools in Cavite City who was reassigned to Puerto Princessa thru an order issued by the Secretary of the Depart!ent of "ducation Culture and Sports #D"CS$ represented by for!er %ndersecretary &a!on C. Bacani. Instead of co!plying with the directive however Dr. Ignacio filed a petition for its nullification with the &egional 'ffice of the Civil Service Co!!ission #CSC$ considering that the she was a presidential appointee. Ignacio(s contended that her reassign!ent to Puerto Princesa City was arbitrary oppressive and contrary to law. Being a presidential appointee with Career ")ecutive Service #C"S$ &an* + eligibility only the President through the D"CS Secretary could reappoint her and such authority could not be delegated to an %ndersecretary. She further alleged that her reassign!ent was a de!otion and as such pre,udicial to her for the following reasons: #a$ Cavite is a Class - province while Puerto Princesa City is a Class D city. #b$ Puerto Princesa City is the farthest schools division in the country while Cavite is her ho!e province. and #c$ as Cavite Schools Division Superintendent she had / 012 teachers e)cluding non3teaching personnel under her supervision whereas in Puerto Princesa City she had only 452 teachers under her. 6he CSC dis!issed Dr. Ignacio(s petition ruling that the position of Schools Division Superintendent has C"S classification. hence such Career ")ecutive Service 'fficer #C"S'$ !ay be reassigned or transferred fro! one station to another as long as the reassign!ent or transfer is !ade in the interest of public service and involves no reduction in ran* salary or status. 6he CSC also held that the petitioner(s reassign!ent to Puerto Princesa City was not a de!otion because she retained the sa!e position and ran* as well as the sa!e salary rate and allowances. Issue: 7hether or not her reassign!ent violated her right to security of tenure. 8eld: 6here was no violation. 6he petitioner was a !e!ber of the C"S with a ran* of C"S' +. as such her security of tenure pertains only to her ran* and not to her office or her position. 6he security of tenure of e!ployees in the career e)ecutive service #e)cept first and second3level e!ployees in the civil service$ pertains only to ran* and not to the office or to the position to which they !ay be appointed. 6hus a C"S' !ay be transferred or reassigned fro! one position to another without losing his ran* which follows hi! wherever he is transferred or reassigned. In fact a C"S' suffers no di!inution of salary even if assigned to a C"S position with lower salary grade as the co!pensation is according to C"S ran* and not on the basis of the position or office occupied. In the leading case of Cuevas v. Bacal the Court ruled that a C"S' !ay be reassigned or transferred fro! one position to another in the interest of the service. such an assign!ent however shall not result in reduction in ran* or co!pensation. 7hile the instant case is not on all fours with Cuevas the rationale behind the said decision is applicable. It is necessary to consider the reason for the creation of the Career ")ecutive Service. %nder the Integrated &eorgani9ation Plan which was charged with reorgani9ing the govern!ent :to pro!ote si!plicity econo!y and efficiency; in its operations the Career ")ecutive Service was created because the for!er Civil Service syste! was not geared to !eet the e)ecutive !anpower needs of the govern!ent. 6he filling of higher ad!inistrative positions was often based on considerations other than !erit and de!onstrated co!petence. 6he area of pro!otion is currently confined to the person or persons :ne)t3in3ran*; in the agency. 6hus it was reco!!ended that a Career ")ecutive Service be established. 6his group of senior ad!inistrators shall be carefully selected on the basis of high <ualifications and co!petence. S*illed in both techni<ues and processes of !anage!ent these career e)ecutives will act as catalysts for ad!inistrative efficiency and as agents of ad!inistrative innovation. 6he status and salary of the career e)ecutives will be based on their ran* and not on the ,ob that they occupy at any given ti!e. In this sense the ran* status of the Career ")ecutive Service is si!ilar to that of the co!!issioned officers in the -r!ed Forces or !e!bers of the Foreign Service. 6he ran* classification in the Service will allow for !obility or fle)ibility of assign!ents such that the govern!ent could utili9e the services or special talents of these career e)ecutives wherever they are !ost needed or will li*ely create the greatest i!pact. 6his feature is especially relevant in a developing country which cannot afford to have its scarce e)ecutive !anpower pegged to particular positions. =obility and fle)ibility in the assign!ent of personnel the better to cope with the e)igencies of public service is thus the distinguishing feature of the Career ")ecutive Service. 6o attain this ob,ective the Integrated &eorgani9ation Plan provides:

e. -ssign!ents &eassign!ents and 6ransferees ... -ny provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding !e!bers of the Career ")ecutive Service !ay be reassigned or transferred fro! one position to another and fro! one depart!ent bureau or office to another. provided that such reassign!ent or transfer is !ade in the interest of public service and involves no reduction in ran* or salary. provided further that no !e!ber shall be reassigned or transferred oftener than every two years. and provided further!ore that if the officer concerned believes that his reassign!ent or transfer is not ,ustified he !ay appeal his case to the President. 6he i!ple!enting rules and regulations of the C"S Board provide: Salary of Career ")ecutive Service 'fficers. > - C"S' is co!pensated according to his C"S ran* and not on the basis of the C"S position he occupies. 8owever if a C"S' is assigned to a C"S position with a higher salary grade than that of his C"S ran* he is allowed to receive the salary of the C"S position. Should he be assigned or !ade to occupy a C"S position with a lower salary grade he shall continue to be paid the salary attached to his C"S ran*. Petitioners are therefore right in arguing that respondent :as a C"S' can be reassigned fro! one C"S position to another and fro! one depart!ent bureau or office to another. Further respondent as a C"S' can even be assigned or !ade to occupy a C"S position with a lower salary grade. In the instant case respondent who holds a C"S &an* III was correctly and properly appointed by the appointing authority to the position of &egional Director a position which has a corresponding C"S &an* Level III.