G.R. No. 140474 - Municipality of Sta. Fe vs. Municipality of Aritao

Tomas D. Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on October 16, 1987, and assumed office on October 27, 1987.
The office of the POEA Administrator is recognized as a career executive service position.

On January 2, 1990, pursuant to a directive from the President of the Philippines requesting resignations from "all Department Heads, Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Heads," and other government officials, Achacoso filed a courtesy resignation.
The President accepted his resignation on April 3, 1990, expressing "deep regrets."
On April 10, 1990, the Secretary of Labor instructed Achacoso to turn over his office to the Deputy Administrator as officer-in-charge.
Achacoso protested his replacement via letter dated April 19, 1990, arguing that his resignation was not voluntary but compelled by the President’s directive, and refused to vacate the office.
Also on April 19, 1990, respondent Jose N. Sarmiento was appointed as the new Administrator of POEA to replace Achacoso.
Achacoso was informed the next day and again ordered to vacate his office.
He filed a motion for reconsideration on April 23, 1990, which was denied on April 30, 1990.

Achacoso petitioned this Court for prohibition and mandamus to annul Sarmiento's appointment and to stop respondents from preventing him from performing his duties.
He claimed security of tenure as a member of the Career Executive Service (CES), categorizing his position equivalent to undersecretary rank under Article IV, Section 5 of P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree).
He argued that courtesy resignations demanded by the President did not amount to voluntary resignation and, thus, removal without due cause was illegal.

The Solicitor General conceded POEA Administrator is a career executive service position but argued Achacoso himself was not a CES eligible at the time of appointment.
The Civil Service Commission certified that Achacoso had not taken the CES Development Program, was not CES eligible, nor appointed to a CES rank.
Under the Integrated Reorganization Plan (P.D. 1 and amendments), appointments to CES posts must be from a list of CES eligibles, else appointees are considered temporary and must subsequently take the CES examination to gain eligibility.
Because Achacoso lacked CES eligibility and failed to take the required exams, his appointment was only temporary and thus revocable at will by the appointing authority.

The Court distinguished between permanent and temporary appointments, holding that security of tenure applies only to permanent appointments filled by qualified eligibles.
Temporary or acting appointments exist to prevent service disruption and are inherently terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
The courtesy resignation was unnecessary to effect removal since a temporary appointee can be removed by expiration of term at will without cause.
The fact that Achacoso served for over three years did not convert his appointment into a permanent one without the required eligibility and examination.

Whether Tomas D. Achacoso, as POEA Administrator, enjoys security of tenure under the Career Executive Service.
Whether Achacoso’s filing of a courtesy resignation pursuant to the President’s directive constituted a voluntary resignation and effected his removal lawfully.
Whether the appointment of respondent Jose N. Sarmiento as POEA Administrator was valid in view of Achacoso’s removal or resignation.