G.R. No. 143366 - People vs. Roco

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143366)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Ramon S. Roco was initially appointed in 1996 and reappointed in 1999 as LTO Regional Director.
Roco obtained CES eligibility only on August 13, 1999.
Luis Mario M. General was appointed to the same position on September 7, 1999, without CES eligibility.
The relevant legal framework includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Civil Service Law (E.O. No. 292), the CES rules and regulations, the Integrated Reorganization Plan, and jurisprudence on permanent civil service appointments.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Ramon S. Roco was appointed Regional Director of LTO Region V without CES eligibility but later acquired it during incumbency. Luis Mario M. General, without any CES eligibility, was later appointed to the same position. DOTC directed General to assume office and ordered Roco to report for reassignment. Roco filed a petition for quo warranto to invalidate General's appointment, resulting in a temporary restraining order allowing Roco to reassume the post. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Roco, nullifying General's appointment and ordering reinstatement and back pay. Both sides filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases.

Issues Presented

The core legal question is whether CES eligibility alone confers security of tenure in CES positions or whether appointment to an appropriate CES rank is also an indispensable requirement. Moreover, the validity of appointments lacking CES eligibility or rank and the applicable limits on reassignments and transfers under the Integrated Reorganization Plan were addressed.

Career Executive Service Eligibility and Appointment Framework

Under Section 27(1) of the Civil Service Law and the CES Board’s rules:

A permanent appointment requires meeting all position requirements, including eligibility.
Passing the CES exam results in CES eligibility and inclusion in the roster of eligibles.
Appointment to a CES rank is by the President upon the Board’s recommendation and completes an official’s formal membership in the CES, conferring security of tenure.
There are six CES ranks (CESO I to CESO VI), with ranking dependent on managerial responsibility and performance evaluations.
Appointment to a CES rank is essential for permanent status and security of tenure in CES positions, which are equivalent to various government executive ranks.

Requirements for Security of Tenure in Career Executive Service

Security of tenure in the CES requires two cumulative requisites:

CES eligibility.
Appointment to an appropriate CES rank based on managerial responsibility and performance.

Security of tenure attaches to the rank, not the position. A CES officer’s rank follows them through reassignments or transfers, and their salary is based on rank rather than the assigned position, with provisions to prevent salary reductions upon reassignment.

Application to the Case: Roco’s Status and Appointment Validity

Although Roco acquired CES eligibility before General’s appointment, he did not hold the required CES rank (rank level V) corresponding to the Regional Director position. This absence means that Roco did not acquire security of tenure and could validly be reassigned or replaced. Hence, he could not successfully invoke unlawful removal protections based solely on CES eligibility.

Jurisprudential Basis

The ruling cites Achacoso v. Macaraig, where the Court held that without the appropriate eligibility and qualifications for a position, an appointment can only be temporary and revocable at will. Merely occupying a CES position does not guarantee security of tenure if qualifications, including CES rank, are deficient.

Reassignments and Transfers under the Integrated Reorganization Plan

CES members may be reassigned or transferred in the public interest without loss of rank or salary, but reassignments cannot occur more frequently than every two years. If a reassignment is disputed, the affected officer may appeal to the President. This flexibility underscores that tenure protection pertains to rank, facilit

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143366)

Factual Background

Respondent Ramon S. Roco was appointed Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Region V by President Fidel V. Ramos on August 26, 1996, a position equivalent to Career Executive Service (CES) rank level V.
Roco assumed and performed the duties of the office starting 1996 and was re-appointed by President Joseph Estrada on February 8, 1999.
At the time of both appointments, Roco was not a CES eligible; however, during his incumbency, on August 13, 1999, he received CES eligibility conferred by the Career Executive Service Board.
On September 7, 1999, petitioner Luis Mario General, who was not CES eligible, was appointed by President Estrada as Regional Director, occupying the same post held by respondent Roco.
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Officer-in-Charge directed General to assume the office and instructed Roco to await further instructions, resulting in General assuming office on September 16, 1999.
Roco filed a petition for quo warranto before the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing Roco to reassume the office.
After 60 days and absence of a preliminary injunction, General again took office.
On March 10, 2000, the CA ruled in favor of Roco, affirming his appointment, nullifying General's, and ordering General to vacate the post.
Two separate petitions under Rule 45 were filed: General’s against Roco (G.R. No. 143366) and the Solicitor General representing Executive officials (G.R. No. 143524) also against Roco. Both petitions were consolidated.

Contentions of the Parties

Respondent Roco argued that obtaining CES eligibility alone entitles an employee to security of tenure in their CES position without need for appointment to the appropriate CES rank.
Petitioners General and DOTC officials claimed that CES eligibility alone is insufficient; actual appointment to the appropriate CES rank is required to acquire security of tenure.
Petitioners maintained that an employee without such appointment holds only temporary status and may be legitimately reassigned or replaced.

Legal Provisions Applied

Section 27(1) of the Civil Service Law: Permanent appointment requires meeting all position requirements, including appropriate eligibility.
CES Board’s rules distinguish two stages:
1. Conferment of CES eligibility after passing the