Case No.

1
Tecson vs. Salas, 34 SCRA 275, No. L-27524 July 31, 1970

Petitioner: JOSE C. TECSON - Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public Works

Respondent: HON. RAFAEL SALAS – Executive Secretary
Ponente of the case: JUSTICE FERNANDO
Nature of the case: APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila; Reyes, J.

Doctrine:

Constitutional law; President; Power of control over all executive departments; Villena ruling still valid.
—Insofar as the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus or offices is concerned, the
Villena ruling applies with undiminished force. No doubt can be entertained then as to the continuing
vitality of the Villena doctrine concerning the plenitude of authority lodged in the President implicit in
the power of control expressly granted him by the Constitution. Nor should any restrictive significance
be attached to the wording in the Mondano decision as to the implications of such concept considering
that there was no need in such case for a more elaborate treatment, all that was necessary being to
distinguish it from supervision.

Civil Service Act; Personnel; Transfer of personnel; Detail to Office of the President not considered a
transfer.—Detail of a Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public Works to the Office of the President
pursuant to a directive of the Executive Secretary acting by presidential authority, is not removal or
transfer.

Same; Same; Same; When transfer is allowed.—Transfer of a Civil Service employee from one position
to another is allowable under the Civil Service Act so long as there be no reduction in rank or salary, such
transfer therefore not being considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service.

Same; Same; Power of President to order detail government employees.—The power of the President
to order the detail of a government employee from one office to another is granted. While the
Constitution guarantees the security of a public official’s term, as well as his right to be compensated,
there can be no disputing that the overriding concern is that the task of government be performed well.
One in public service, therefore, should not lack awareness that whatever talents he may possess should
be beneficially employed for the public welfare, the determination as to where they should be devoted
being ordinarily left to the discretion of his superior.

Decisions per court:

Lower Court: Petition dismissed by Hon. Juan O. Reyes. Motion to dismiss by respondents sustained.
The matter is endorsed to the Supreme Court for appeal of the lower court’s decision.

Petitioner’s Contention:

1. That the Salas detail order although issued by Authority of the President, should be approved by the
Budget Commissioner and the Commissioner of Civil Service as there is no specification of the period of
assignment.

2. That he had a valid cause of action as there was a removal or, at the very least, a transfer from his
present position to another without his consent, contrary to the constitutional provision, at the same
time disputing the presidential authority under his power of control to order such a detail.

Respondent’s Contention:

That the temporary assignment of the petitioner to the Office of the President is not a demotion in rank
and salary. Neither is it to be considered as a disciplinary action taken against him. The detail does not
involve removal from his present position by transferring him to another position in a lower class. He
will retain his position as Superintendent of Dredging and will receive all the emoluments and privileges
appurtenant thereto.
Facts of the case:

Petitioner Jose C. Tecson, Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public Works, sought through a special
civil action for certiorari and prohibition the nullification of his detail to the Office of the President
according to a directive of the then Executive Secretary, Rafael Salas, acting by presidential authority,
imputing to it the character of a removal without cause.

The petition now filed against respondents prayed that the detail dated October 14, 1966 of petitioner
Superintendent of Dredging of the Bureau of Public Works to the Office of the President to assist in the
San Fernando Port Project be declared illegal, null and void.

The Solicitor General filed for a motion to dismiss, based on a lack of cause of action, as the power of the
then Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President to detail petitioner, was beyond question.

Issue:

Whether or not the assignment Mr. Jose C. Tecson on temporary detail to the office of Commodore
Santiago Nuval, Presidential Assistant on Ports and Harbors, by the President of the Philippines thru the
Executive Secretary, constitutes removal from office without cause.

Ruling of the Court:

No, the reassignment of Mr. Jose C. Tecson is not considered as removal from office without just
cause.

Under the Civil Service Act provision then in force, so long as there be no reduction in rank or salary,
such transfer therefore not being considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service.

There is no merit to the assertion made in the brief of petitioner that the directive of the Executive
Secretary, acting upon authority of the President, needed the approval of the Civil Service Commission
and the Commissioner of the Budget for its enforcement. The assertion is repugnant to the concept of a
single, not a plural, executive in whom is vested the whole panoply of executive power. It is not only
illogical, but it does not make sense, to require as a prerequisite to its validity the approval of
subordinates to an action taken by their superior, the President, who trader the Constitution is the
Executive, all prerogatives attaching to such branch being vested in him solely. In that sense, for those
discharging purely executive functions in the national government, he gives orders to all and takes
orders from none.