Case Summary (G.R. No. 139789)
Facts and Procedural History
Following a directive from the President of the Philippines dated January 2, 1990, requesting courtesy resignations from senior government officials, Achacoso filed his resignation, which the President accepted on April 3, 1990. Thereafter, Achacoso was directed to vacate his office, but he refused, protesting that his resignation was not voluntary. Subsequently, respondent Sarmiento was appointed as Administrator of POEA, prompting Achacoso to file a petition for prohibition and mandamus seeking to annul Sarmiento’s appointment and to prevent the respondents from denying him the means to fulfill his duties.
Legal Issues
The principal issue concerns whether Achacoso enjoys security of tenure as a career official, which would protect him from removal without cause. The respondents contended that although the position of POEA Administrator is classified under the Career Executive Service (CES), the petitioner himself was not a CES eligible and thus was not entitled to security of tenure.
Petitioner’s Argument on Security of Tenure
Achacoso argued he was entitled to security of tenure as a member of the Career Service under Article IV, Section 5 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), which includes positions of Undersecretary rank and equivalent in the Career Executive Service, appointed by the President. He maintained that courtesy resignations were not true resignations as they were submitted under compulsion, without a clear intention to relinquish office, citing Ortiz v. Commission on Elections to underscore that a valid resignation requires a voluntary act.
Respondents’ Position and Certification
The Solicitor General, supported by a certification from the Civil Service Commission, contended that Achacoso was not a CES eligible because he had not undergone the Career Executive Service Development Program nor passed the requisite CES examination and thus was not entitled to security of tenure. The Integrated Reorganization Plan under P.D. 1, as amended by P.D. 336 and P.D. 337, mandates that appointments to CES must be made from a list of CES eligibles, except in exceptional cases where the appointee must subsequently pass the CES examination. The petitioner had not complied with this requirement and, consequently, held only a temporary appointment.
Nature of Appointments and Security of Tenure
The Court underscored that the mere classification of a position as being within the Career Service does not confer security of tenure on an unqualified appointee. A permanent appointment, which guarantees tenure, requires fulfillment of eligibility requirements for the position. Since petitioner lacked the requisite CES eligibility, his appointment was at best temporary. Temporary appointments inherently lack fixed tenure; thus, they may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority without the need to prove cause.
Distinction Between Removal and Expiration of Term
The decision highlighted the distinction between removal and termination by expiration of term. Security of tenure protects permanent appointees from removal without cause, but acting or temporary appointees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Therefore, termination of an acting appointment is by expiration of term, not removal, which does not invoke protection under the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure. Consequently, petitioner’s non-renewal or replacement was valid even absent his courtesy resignation.
Petitioner's Argument on Length of Service
Petitioner contended that serving over three years negated the temporary nature of his appointment, asserting that temporary appointments are limited to twelve months. The Court rejected this argument, indicating that duration alone does not transform a temporary appointment into a permanent one or confer eligibility or security of tenure if substantive qualifications are lacking.
Inapplicability of Cited Cases
The Court found petitioner’s reliance on cases such as Luego v. Civil Service Commission, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Intermediate
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139789)
Facts of the Case
- Tomas D. Achacoso was appointed as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on October 16, 1987, and took office on October 27, 1987.
- On January 2, 1990, pursuant to a Presidential request directed to various government officials, including department heads, Achacoso submitted a courtesy resignation.
- The President accepted this resignation on April 3, 1990, "with deep regrets."
- On April 10, 1990, the Secretary of Labor requested Achacoso to turn over his office to the Deputy Administrator designated as officer-in-charge.
- Achacoso protested his replacement in a letter dated April 19, 1990, asserting that his resignation was not voluntary but filed only under presidential directive and that he would not surrender his office.
- On the same date, Jose N. Sarmiento was appointed Administrator of the POEA, replacing Achacoso.
- Achacoso was informed of Sarmiento's appointment on April 20, 1990, and was again asked to vacate his office.
- He filed a motion for reconsideration on April 23, 1990, which was denied on April 30, 1990.
- Subsequently, Achacoso petitioned the Supreme Court through a petition for prohibition and mandamus, seeking annulment of Sarmiento’s appointment and to prevent respondents from discharging him from his duties.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, Tomas D. Achacoso, is entitled to security of tenure protection as a career official.
- Whether the petitioner’s removal was without legal cause and thus illegal.
- Whether Sarmiento’s appointment was valid despite the petitioner's claim of security of tenure.
Petitioner's Contentions
- Achacoso claimed membership in the Career Executive Service under Article IV, Section 5 of P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree), which includes officials of ranks such as Undersecretary and other equivalent ranks appointed by the President who enjoy security of tenure.
- He argued that courtesy resignations requested by the President cannot be considered legal resignations if submitted under duress, as this would defeat the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
- Invoked the Supreme Court ruling in Ortiz v. Commission on Elections emphasizing that a resignation must be a clear and voluntary relinquishment of the position, and a courtesy resignation is not a legal resignation.
- Argued that the appointment of Sarmiento was invalid because there was no lawful vacancy due to his alleged illegal removal.
Respondents' Arguments and Evidence
- The Solicitor General admitted that the POEA Administrator is a position within the Career Executive Service but denied that Achacoso was a career official entitled to security of tenure.
- Provided a certification from the Civil Service Commission stating:
- Achacoso had no participat