Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > March 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28676 March 29, 1984 - BIBIANO G. MADERAZO, JR. v. RAFAEL BAYLON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28676. March 29, 1984.]

BIBIANO G. MADERAZO, JR., Petitioner-Appellee, v. RAFAEL BAYLON, in his capacity as District Supervisor, MAURO SABOLBORO, in his capacity as Division Superintendent of Schools, Division of Leyte, JUAN MANUEL, in his capacity as Director of Public Schools, Respondents-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; MAGNA CARTA OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS; TRANSFER FROM ONE STATION TO ANOTHER WITHOUT CONSENT, ILLEGAL. — It is manifest that the transfer of Maderazo, a public school superintendent, from Caibiran to Biliran was contrary to the provisions of R.A. No. 4670 because it was made without his consent and over his opposition. R.A. No. 4670, according to its Section 35 took effect upon its approval. It was approved on June 18, 1966, or before Maderazo was ordered transferred from Caibiran to Biliran.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 6 THEREOF ENFORCEABLE EVEN WITHOUT RECOURSE TO RULES AND REGULATIONS. — The respondents claim that since the rules and regulations had not yet been published when Maderazo was transferred, the Act was not yet in force. Wrong. The Magna Carta covers a host of subjects which need elaboration by means of rules and regulations. But there is nothing in Section 30 that would warrant a conclusion that the promulgation of the rules and regulations is a condition precedent to the effectivity of the Act. Section 6 of the Act requiring consent for transfer is enforceable without recourse to the rules and regulations.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


The question presented in this quo warranto action is whether or not a public school district supervisor can be transferred from one district to another regardless of his consent. The defunct Court of First Instance of Manila gave a negative answer. The appellants assert that the answer should be in the affirmative.

The facts are simple enough:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 5, 1965, Bibiano G. Maderazo, the petitioner-appellee, was appointed Public Schools District Supervisor Range 41. The appointment did not state the district where he was to discharge his duties but the stipulation of facts shows that he was originally assigned to the Caibiran District in Leyte.

In a letter dated July 9, 1966, Mauro Sabolboro, Leyte Division II Superintendent of Schools, informed Maderazo of "your transfer from Caibiran District to Biliran District as District Supervisor effective immediately."cralaw virtua1aw library

Maderazo requested reconsideration of the order of transfer in no less than four letters sent to the Director of Public Schools but the order was not reconsidered. In fact on March 7, 1967, Superintendent Sabolboro informed Maderazo that the Director of Public Schools had ordered the implementation of his transfer.

Maderazo had not been charged administratively prior to the transfer.

In Maderazo’s letter dated March 10, 1967, addressed to the Secretary of Education wherein he asked for reconsideration of the order of the Director of Public Schools that the transfer be implemented, he stated, inter alia, "That I am now 61 years old and will retire in two years."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is obvious that in this year of 1984, Maderazo’s prayer that he be restored to his office in Caibiran has become moot and academic for the man is now well way beyond retirement age. Maderazo wrote a letter dated February 23, 1984, asking for the early decision of his case. In his letter he states, "I am now in my advanced age of 79 years old, ailing and desirous that I will still be able to vindicate myself and enjoy the benefits or fruits of my labor."cralaw virtua1aw library

What remains to be resolved i8 Maderazo’s salary which was withheld because he refused the transfer on the ground that it was illegal for lack of consent on his part.chanrobles law library : red

In deciding for Maderazo, the court a quo applied Republic Act No. 4670 known as the Magna Carta of Public School Teachers. The provisions of the law which are relevant to this case are the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 1. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act to promote and improve the social and economic status of public school teachers, their living and working conditions, their terms of employment and career prospects in order that they may compare favorably with existing opportunities in other walks of life, attract and retain in she teaching profession more people with the proper qualification, it being recognized that advance in education depends on the qualifications and ability of the teaching staff and that education is an essential factor in the economic growth of the nation as a productive investment of vital importance.

"Sec. 2. Title-Definition. — This Act shall be known as the `Magna Carts for Public School Teachers’ and shall apply to all public school teachers except those in the professional staff of state colleges and universities.

As used in this Act, the term `teacher’ shall mean all persons engaged in classroom teaching, in any level of instruction, on full-time basis, including guidance counselors, school librarians, industrial arts or vocational instructors, and all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools, colleges and universities operated by the Government or its political subdivision; but shall not include school nurses, school physicians, school dentists, and other school employees.

"Sec. 6. Consent for Transfer-Transportation Expenses. — Except for cause and as herein otherwise provided, no teacher shall be transferred without his consent from one station to another.

Where the exigencies of the service require the transfer of a teacher from one station to another, such transfer may be effected by the school superintendent who shall previously notify the teacher concerned of the transfer and the reason or reasons therefor. If the teacher believes there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the Director of Public Schools, or the Director of Vocational Education, as the case may be. Pending his appeal and the decision thereon, his transfer shall be held in abeyance: Provided, however, That no transfers whatever shall be made three months before any local or national election.

Necessary transfer expenses of the teacher and his family shall be paid for by the Government if his transfer is finally approved."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is manifest that the transfer of Maderazo from Caibiran to Biliran was contrary to the law because it was made without his consent and over his opposition.

The respondents contend, however, that R.A. No. 4670 was not yet in force when the transfer was made. This is baseless.

R.A. No. 4670, according to its Section 35 took effect upon its approval. It was approved on June 18, 1966, or before Maderazo was ordered transferred from Caibiran to Biliran.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The Act stipulates that "The Secretary of Education shall formulate and prepare the necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act. Rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Section shall take effect thirty days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation and by such other means as the Secretary of Education deems reasonably sufficient to give interested parties general notice of such issuance." (Sec. 30) And the respondents claim that since the rules and regulations had not yet been published when Maderazo was transferred, the Act was not yet in force. Wrong. The Magna Carta covers a host of subjects which need elaboration by means of rules and regulations. But there is nothing in Section 30 that would warrant a conclusion that the promulgation of the rules and regulations is a condition precedent to the effectivity of the Act. Section 6 of the Act requiring consent for transfer is enforceable without recourse to the rules and regulations.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed and judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents or their successors to pay the salaries of the petitioner from the time of his illegal transfer to the time he had to retire compulsorily. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32422 March 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CRISOLA

  • G.R. No. 55628 March 2, 1984 - ZOSIMO J. PAREDES, ET AL. v. EXEC. SEC. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37146 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-39211 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFROCINO ATANACIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-39960-61 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORIANO T. BUYNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44775 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRISCILLANO BADO

  • G.R. No. 54952 March 5, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57257 & Adm. Matter Nos. 1337-Ret & 10468-CFI March 5, 1984 - ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES, ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59840 March 5, 1984 - AMELIA C. CASIBANG v. PHILIPPINE TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38062 March 6, 1984 - ALTO SALES CORPORATION v. GUARDSON R. LOOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54000 March 6, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESPERIDION RECIMIENTO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64499 March 6, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO L. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33886 March 7, 1984 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. LEONOR ARELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46771 March 7, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56965 March 7, 1984 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

  • G.R. No. 66474 March 7, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT TOMIMBANG

  • G.R. No. L-36443 March 8, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CERILO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 50669 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO OLALIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 56356 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO R. TEAÑO

  • G.R. No. 61128 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE DUMALAG

  • G.R. No. 61686 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONIR AKBARI

  • G.R. No. 63216 March 12, 1984 - EXPEDITO B. PILAR v. SANGUNIANG BAYAN OF DASOL, PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50321 March 13, 1984 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63265 March 13, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MARZAN

  • G.R. No. L-33957 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME SOLIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48746 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO CABANLIG

  • G.R. No. 53838 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO P. MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63227 March 15, 1984 - A. MARQUEZ, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37922 March 16, 1984 - ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI, ET AL. v. ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI EMPLOYEES ASS’N., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50450 March 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS M. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-26970 March 19, 1984 - BUAYAN CATTLE CO., INC. v. JESUS QUINTILLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28741 March 20, 1984 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

  • G.R. No. L-47793 March 20, 1984 - PEDRO P. CLEMENTE v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 50151 March 21, 1984 - CO CHUAN SENG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51337 March 22, 1984 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56384 March 22, 1984 - FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. Nos. 62295-96 March 22, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. PACOT

  • G.R. No. 62354 March 22, 1984 - ROSALINDA GODIZANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62406 March 22, 1984 - GREGORIO MEDINA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1806 March 23, 1984 - LYDIA JAMERO GESUDEN v. EDWIN Z. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-34986 March 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LUDOVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58176 March 23, 1984 - RUTH JIMENEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861 March 23, 1984 - REYNALDO R. BAYOT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50720 March 26, 1984 - SORIANO MATA v. JOSEPHINE K. BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55381 March 26, 1984 - JULIETA SALGADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60050 March 26, 1984 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29577 March 27, 1984 - PASTORA ANDAL MANIGBAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45366-68 March 27, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SOMONTAO

  • G.R. No. 60210 March 27, 1984 - ARTURO P. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28676 March 29, 1984 - BIBIANO G. MADERAZO, JR. v. RAFAEL BAYLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39889 March 29, 1984 - UNION OF SUPERVISORS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51921 March 29, 1984 - PATROCINIA OBAÑANA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57623 March 29, 1984 - FELIPE JUALA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64519 March 29, 1984 - MANUELA U. VDA. DE MARAUG v. ALEJANDRO C. SILAPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64802 March 29, 1984 - VENUSTO PANOTES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.