Case Digest (G.R. No. 172144)
Facts:
PEZA Board of Directors and Lilia B. De Lima, Petitioners, vs. Gloria J. Mercado, Respondent, G.R. No. 172144, March 09, 2010, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Gloria J. Mercado was appointed Group Manager for Policy and Planning of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) on September 16, 1998 (temporary). She was promoted on May 16, 1999 to Deputy Director General for Policy and Planning; the appointment form indicated “permanent” but bore the annotation “NO SECURITY OF TENURE UNLESS HE/SHE OBTAINS CESO OR CSEE ELIGIBILITY.”
On June 1, 2000, Lilia B. de Lima, as PEZA Director General, notified respondent of termination of her appointment effective that day; the PEZA Board in executive session adopted a resolution appointing Wilhelm G. Ortaliz (a CES-eligible) as Deputy Director General effective immediately. On June 7, 2000 respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City Civil Case No. 00-0172: a petition for prohibition, quo warranto and damages with preliminary injunctive relief challenging PEZA Board Resolution No. 00-187 and Ortaliz’s appointment. She alleged (a) her Master in National Security Administration (MNSA) degree automatically conferred Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility; (b) R.A. No. 8748 amended the PEZA charter to remove the CES-eligibility requirement for Deputy Director General positions; and (c) her termination was in bad faith entitling her to damages.
Petitioners countered that an MNSA degree at most conferred CESO rank subject to CES Board evaluation and agency recommendation, that respondent was not CES-eligible (as certified by the CES Board), and that R.A. 8748 did not and did not intend to eliminate the CES-eligibility requirement; alternatively, even if it did, R.A. 8748 took effect after respondent’s promotion.
The RTC (Branch 108, Pasay City) rendered a Decision dated December 4, 2001 dismissing respondent’s petition. The trial court found (a) the CES eligibility requirement for Deputy Director General remained in force; (b) an MNSA degree did not automatically confer CES eligibility (citing Executive Order No. 696 as amended by EO No. 771 and CESB Resolution No. 204); (c) CESB certified respondent was not CES-eligible; and (d) respondent’s appointment was therefore temporary and expired upon Ortaliz’s appointment. The RTC denied damages.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. By its Decision of December 14, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC: it held respondent’s promotion to a permanent Deputy Director General meant she could not be summarily removed; that her 1993 MNSA degree conferred CES eligibility under EO No. 696, as amended by EO No. 771; and that even if she were not CES-eligible then, R.A. No. 8748 had deleted the CES-eligibility requirement from Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 7916, so the requirement no longer bound appointments. The CA later issued an Amended Decision (March 31...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Mercado a member of the Career Executive Service (i.e., a CES eligible) with security of tenure at the time of her termination on June 1, 2000?
- Did Republic Act No. 8748 remove the CES eligibility requirement for PEZA Deputy Director General positions under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7916, thereby protecting respondent from summary removal?
- Were petitioners’ actions in terminating respondent illegal, entitling her to re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)