G.R. No. L-40491 - Amante vs. Sunga

On August 28, 1998, petitioner Ramon Ike V. SeAeres—then a Foreign Service Officer Class III of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)—was appointed by former President Estrada as the Executive Director/Director General of the National Computer Center (NCC).
Petitioner took his oath on September 8, 1998, and assumed office on September 10, 1998.
Concurrently, an undated Secondment Agreement was executed between the DFA and the NCC with petitioner’s conformity. Key provisions included:

The secondment of petitioner from DFA to NCC for the period starting from his assumption of duties at NCC until June 2001.
NCC’s responsibility for petitioner’s salary, allowances, and benefits during the secondment.
Petitioner’s status being placed on leave without pay in the DFA while fulfilling his NCC duties.
Conditions regarding leave applications, clearance of money and property accountabilities, and that no modification could be made except by mutual amendment.

The position of NCC Director General was identified by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) as a Career Executive Service (CES) position, which required the qualification of CESO Rank I.
At the time of petitioner’s appointment, he had only been conferred Career Service Professional (CSP) and Career Service Executive (CSE) eligibilities, having not yet completed the full CES eligibility process (specifically, he had passed only the first stage – the Management Aptitude Test Battery).
Later, during his incumbency, petitioner completed his CES eligibility examinations and was conferred CES eligibility by the CESB on July 3, 2000; a recommendation for his appointment to CESO Rank I was submitted on January 15, 2001.

Before the CES ranking process could be completed, the political landscape shifted when President Estrada was ousted in January 2001 (People Power II), and former President Arroyo assumed office.
On March 2, 2001, President Arroyo appointed respondent Delfin Jay M. Sabido IX as the new NCC Director General, and Sabido officially assumed his duties on May 15, 2001.
Petitioner, refusing to vacate his post, asserted that his appointment had conferred him security of tenure—claiming that as a CSE and eventually CES eligible, he could only be removed for cause and after due process.

Although the CSC approved the Secondment Agreement on March 12, 2001—with a modified effectivity date—the petitioner later withdrew his conformity to the agreement in a letter dated March 20, 2001.
Petitioner controversially argued that upon his assumption of the NCC post he had effectively resigned from the DFA, thus losing any “secondment” basis, and he further claimed that the agreement should not be the basis of his removal.
Respondents contended that, by signing the Secondment Agreement, petitioner accepted a temporary status with the NCC that did not bestow permanent tenure.

Aggrieved by his removal, petitioner filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals on May 17, 2001.
Petitioner raised several issues challenging the legality of his removal, the distinction between his CSE eligibility and the necessary CES rank, and the application of relevant CSC and administrative resolutions.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals dismissed his suit for lack of merit, and its subsequent resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration was also affirmed.

Whether petitioner’s security of tenure could be established solely on the basis of his CSE and CES eligibility without the formal conferment of a CES rank.
Whether a petitioner holding only a temporary appointment due to incomplete CES membership could validly assert protection against removal.

Whether the Secondment Agreement between the DFA and the NCC, executed with petitioner’s conformity, conferred a permanent status or merely a temporary, seconded appointment.
Whether petitioner’s subsequent withdrawal of his conformity to the agreement affected his right to claim permanence or security in his position.

Whether the court correctly applied the rulings in Bacal and Roco regarding the nature of security of tenure in the CES—that it attaches to the CES rank and not inherently to the position.
Whether the court erred in differentiating between CSE eligibility and the requirement for appointment to the appropriate CES rank in adjudicating petitioner’s claim.

Whether there was any malice or bad faith on the part of the respondents in effecting petitioner’s removal.
Whether petitioner was entitled to damages given that his removal was based on his temporary appointment status.