Case Digest (G.R. No. 161942)
Facts:
Jose M. Caringal v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, G.R. No. 161942, October 13, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jose M. Caringal was appointed Assistant Department Manager II of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) on December 9, 1998 and on December 18, 1998 was instructed to assume duties in the PCSO Legal Department. After a change in PCSO leadership, Chairman Ricardo Golpeo issued Special Order No. 2000‑139 reassigning petitioner to the Assets and Investment Department on May 16, 2000; petitioner protested the reassignment as constructive dismissal on May 18, 2000.
On May 19, 2000 a Civil Service Commission (CSC) director informed PCSO that the CSC had inadvertently failed to stamp petitioner’s appointment with the usual collatilla that the appointee “does not have security of tenure until he obtains a CES eligibility,” but the director could not correct the original document because petitioner held the original appointment. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint with the CSC on June 16, 2000 for constructive dismissal and related claims against Chairman Golpeo and Assistant General Manager Magsalin.
On June 22, 2000 the PCSO Board adopted Resolution No. 793 terminating petitioner’s employment on the ground that he lacked Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility and thus security of tenure. On June 28, 2000 Chairman Golpeo issued a memorandum terminating petitioner’s temporary appointment effective June 30, 2000, invoking Sections 4 and 13 of Rule 5 on Appointments under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
The CSC resolved petitioner’s administrative complaint by Resolution No. 01‑0444 (Feb. 15, 2001), dismissing it for lack of merit. The CSC concluded that the Assistant Department Manager II is a third‑level position requiring Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility, that petitioner did not possess that eligibility, and therefore his appointment could at best be temporary and properly replaced by Atty. Lauro Patiag, a CES eligible, who was later appointed. The CSC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 16, 2001.
Petitioner sought judicial relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 66695). On January 27, 2004 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the CSC resolutions, holding that petitioner’s appointment was temporary for lack of CES eligibility and that replacement by a CES eligible was lawful; the CA also discussed the Omnibus Rules’ definitions of “permanent” and “temporary” appointments (Rule V, Sec. 4; Sec. 2(b)) and noted a presidential memorandum on hold‑over capacity but found no entitlement to reinstatement with back salaries.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner possess security of tenure as Assistant Department Manager II such that he could be removed only for just cause?
- Was petitioner’s separation and replacement by a CES eligible lawful and in accordance with Civil Servic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)