The Regional Trial Court has upheld an earlier order that dismissed the injunction case filed by a lawyer and an administrative officer of the Cebu City Public Attorney’s Office to stop their transfer to the province.
RTC Judge Ramon Daomilas Jr. found no merit in the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Elisa Porio and Administrative Officer Carmelita Dacanay on the case they filed against Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta and PAO regional head Maria G-Ree Calinawan.
In a three-page order, Daomilas upheld the respondents’ administrative authority to transfer the petitioners anytime.
Porio and Dacanay contested their reassignments to Barili last March. They alleged that the transfer was motivated by ill-will and spite and maintained that this was because they both supported a petition against Calinawan.
But Daomilas ruled that the petitioners cannot block their reassignment to Barili because their appointment papers say they can be transferred to other posts.
Daomilas said Porio’s appointment papers cover the entire region while Dacanay’s appointment covers the entire country.
The two petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the ruling claiming that the court erred in falling to appreciate the grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the respondents in ordering their reassignments.
The petitioners said that the acts of Acosta and Calinawan “run counter to established norms of human relations as contained in Article 19 and subsequent articles in the New Civil Code.”
They contended that the abuse in the exercise of one’s right may constitute “an actionable wrong,” like what the respondents have reportedly done.
However, Daomilas said petitioners failed to convince the court that the provisions in the Civil Code cited by the petitioners apply in their case. He reiterated that reassignment of personnel is a “management prerogative.”
“The presumption of regularity in the performance of ones duty under the circumstances cannot, in the eyes of this court outweigh the alleged motive imputed by movant-petitioner as a reason for their transfer,” the court ruled.
Daomilas acknowledged that the common perception of the reassignment may be the internal problem between Calinawan and the petitioners, however, the evidence in the petition reportedly do not support such perception. — Fred. P. Languido/JMO