Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Alonzo-Legasto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), through the Secretary of Finance, requested exemption from the ban on the transfer, promotion, reassignment, and recruitment of public sector employees during the election period for the May 14, 2001 elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted this request via Resolution No. 3499, subject to the submission of supporting documents. The CIR complied by submitting the required documents on March 27, 2001. Subsequently, on May 24, 2001, during the election period, the CIR issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 4-2001, reassigning several Chief Revenue Officers IV of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to different posts, including Technical Assistants at the National Office in Quezon City. The CIR submitted the names and positions of these reassigned personnel to the COMELEC on May 25, 2001. Procedural History: The private respondents, the reassigned BIR officials, filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 99, Quezon City. They sought to enjoin the implementation of RTAO No. 4-2001, alleging it was a removal without cause and a demotion in rank or status, and that it lacked the imprimatur of the Secretary of Finance. The RTC issued a TRO on June 5, 2001. After hearings, the RTC, in an Order dated June 25, 2001, declared that the reassignment was neither a demotion nor a removal without cause and was in accordance with law. However, the RTC still issued a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the CIR had not obtained any exemption from the election ban. The Petition: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to annul the RTC's Order dated June 25, 2001, alleging that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) violated the election ban on personnel transfers because it did not obtain a subsequent approval from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) after submitting its compliance documents.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated June 25, 2001 issued by Judge Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 99, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44422 is SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) prohibits the transfer of civil service employees during an election period without the 'prior approval' of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). In this case, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3499, which explicitly resolved to grant the request for exemption subject only to the submission of specific supporting documents. The Court emphasized that the resolution was clear and categorical in its grant; therefore, once the Petitioner submitted the required documents on March 27, 2001, the condition for the grant was satisfied. There is no requirement in the OEC or in the COMELEC's own resolution that a 'subsequent approval' of the submitted documents is needed for the exemption to take effect. If the COMELEC had found the compliance documents to be insufficient or not in order, it would have been within its power to withdraw its favorable action, which it did not do in this instance. By imposing a requirement for an additional approval that did not exist in law or the resolution, the trial judge exercised judgment in a capricious and whimsical manner, necessitating the annulment of the injunction.
Main Doctrine
A COMELEC resolution granting an exemption from the election ban on personnel transfers, subject only to the submission of specific documents, does not require further approval of such submissions by the COMELEC for the exemption to be effective. The issuance of a preliminary injunction by the RTC based on the perceived lack of subsequent COMELEC approval constitutes grave abuse of discretion.