Case Summary (G.R. No. 116183)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant dates in the factual matrix: PAFCA created by PD No. 1078 (1977); Board Resolution No. 91-026 (April 1, 1991); CSC letter on temporary appointments (March 25, 1992); Cerillo relieved as Board Secretary (March 24, 1992); RA No. 7605 enacted (June 3, 1992); designation of Col. Loleng as OIC (June 8, 1992); notice of separation upon expiration (December 7, 1992); petition for mandamus and reinstatement filed in the RTC (June 25, 1993). Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 brought to the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the RTC decision and order that had directed reinstatement of Rosario V. Cerillo with back wages and attorney’s fees.
Applicable Law and Legal Foundation
The Court framed the dispute within civil service law and policy, invoking the purpose of Republic Act No. 2260 (to ensure appointments according to merit and fitness) and the Civil Service Commission’s authority to promulgate standards and policies, as reflected in the CSC letter limiting temporary appointments. The Court applied these statutory and administrative rules against the backdrop of the constitutional mandate for merit-based public employment (reflected in the civil service law and related jurisprudence).
Facts Relevant to the Question Presented
Private respondents were appointed temporarily because they lacked civil service eligibilities. Cerillo held a temporary appointment as Board Secretary II from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992, but was dismissed from that post for “loss of confidence” on March 24, 1992. She was subsequently designated (not formally appointed) as “Coordinator for Extension Services.” The CSC communicated that temporary appointments could be renewed only up to 1992. After the PSCA transition and the lapse of temporary appointments, private respondents sought judicial relief for reinstatement and back wages.
Issue Presented
Whether private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo was entitled to judicially-ordered reinstatement to the position of “Coordinator for Extension Services” (and related reliefs such as back wages and attorney’s fees).
Lower Court Ruling Challenged
The RTC (respondent judge) ordered reinstatement of Cerillo to the position of Coordinator for Extension Services and awarded back wages and attorney’s fees. The petitioners sought certiorari to nullify those portions of the lower court decision and subsequent order.
Court’s Threshold Determination: Nature of the Employment and the Relief Sought
The Supreme Court emphasized that Cerillo’s role as Coordinator for Extension Services was a mere designation, not a substantive or permanent appointment. It held that a designation does not confer a proprietary right or security of tenure; designations in acting or interim capacities cannot be the subject of a mandamus petition for reinstatement. The Court also noted that Cerillo’s dismissal as Board Secretary II for loss of confidence had not been contested or appealed, so reinstatement to that confidential post could not be compelled via mandamus.
Plantilla and Validity of the Position
The Court observed that the Coordinator for Extension Services position was not included in the PSCA plantilla; because the position did not exist in the plantilla, any purported appointment to it would be invalid. Even if the position had existed, Cerillo’s status as a mere designee would not have established a right to reinstatement or security of tenure.
Discretionary Nature of Reappointment and Limitations on Mandamus
The Court reaffirmed that appointment and reappointment decisions are discretionary acts vested in the appointing authority (here, the PSCA Board of Trustees). Reinstatement in the sense of issuing a new appointment is essentially discretionary and cannot be compelled by mandamus unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Possession of civil service eligibility is a necessary but not a sole determinant for reappointment; other considerations (performance, qualifications, trust and confidence, etc.) remain relevant. The Court concluded that ordering reinstatement would constitute undue judicial interference with the appointing power’s discretion.
Characterization of the Termination
While the petitioners maintained that the separation of the temporary appointees was the lawful consequence of the expiration of their temporary appointments (as guided by the CSC policy limiting temporary appointments to 1992), the RTC had reasoned there was no overt act of dismissal but merely expiration of contracts. The Supreme Court recognized that expiration and the Board’s authority to appoint are legally operative to effect separation. The Court treated the termination as consistent with the appointing authority’s powers and with CSC policy.
Attorney’s Fees and Back Wages: Mootness and Insufficiency of Grounds
Because the Court found the reinstatement order improper, related awards for back wages and attor
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 116183)
Court, Citation and Date
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc; reported at 319 Phil. 217; G.R. No. 116183.
- Decision promulgated October 6, 1995.
- Opinion by Justice Hermosisima, Jr.
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioners (DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria in his official capacity as Chairman of the PSCA Board; Col. Julian J. Loleng, Jr., as Officer-in-Charge; and the PSCA Board of Trustees).
- Purpose of the petition: to nullify and set aside the Decision dated January 31, 1994 and the Order dated June 29, 1994 of respondent Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 113, Pasay City.
- The petition challenged specifically the portion of the lower court judgment ordering reinstatement of private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services" and awarding back wages and attorney’s fees.
Parties, Capacities and Relevant Officeholders
- Petitioners:
- Sec. Ricardo T. Gloria — in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture & Sports (DECS) and Chairman of PSCA Board of Trustees.
- Col. Julian J. Loleng, Jr. — in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, PSCA.
- Board of Trustees of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA) — governing body created under Republic Act No. 7605.
- Public respondent:
- Hon. Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. — Presiding Judge, Branch 113, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
- Private respondents:
- Named employees formerly of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA) and later PSCA, including Rosario V. Cerillo and others who were petitioners in the court below.
- Other DECS Secretaries with roles in the litigation:
- Hon. Isidro Carino — DECS Secretary at time of Col. Loleng’s termination act referenced in the petition.
- Hon. Armand Fabella — DECS Secretary when the reinstatement case was filed in RTC; the lower court judgment involved him as defendant; his resignation precipitated the filing of the present certiorari petition by Sec. Gloria.
Undisputed Facts
- Private respondents were employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA), created by Presidential Decree No. 1078 (January 26, 1977).
- The PAFCA Board of Trustees had authority to appoint officials and employees (except Board members and the President).
- Board Resolution No. 91-026 (April 1, 1991) declared that all faculty/administrative employees are subject to required civil service eligibilities, in accordance with civil service law, rules and regulations.
- Many private respondents, lacking appropriate civil service eligibilities, were issued temporary appointments.
- Rosario V. Cerillo received a one-year temporary appointment as Board Secretary II, effective January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992.
- Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued a letter dated March 25, 1992 emphasizing that temporary appointments were good and renewable only up to 1992; the letter noted temporary appointments last only for a maximum of one (1) year and approvals were subject to yearly renewal up to 1992 only.
- On March 24, 1992, Rosario V. Cerillo was relieved as Board Secretary of PAFCA by Board Resolution No. 92-017 for loss of confidence; subsequently she was designated "Coordinator for Extension Services."
- Republic Act No. 7605 was enacted June 3, 1992, converting PAFCA into the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA) and retaining the Board of Trustees as the governing body with appointment power.
- Col. Julian J. Loleng, Jr. was redesignated Officer-in-Charge by DECS Secretary Isidro Carino on June 8, 1992.
- On December 7, 1992, Col. Loleng informed private respondents they shall be deemed separated from the service upon expiration of their temporary appointments.
- Private respondents filed a "Petition for Mandamus and Reinstatement, with Back Wages and Damages" on June 25, 1993 before the RTC of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 10049), seeking completion of appointment filling by DECS Secretary Armand Fabella and reinstatement by the Board of Trustees.
- Petitioners (in the trial court) opposed on grounds that mandamus cannot compel reappointment because appointment is discretionary and that private respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo is entitled to reinstatement to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services."
- Whether, alternatively, she could validly be reinstated to the position of Board Secretary II.
- Whether the termination or cessation of private respondents' services was valid and whether it constituted an overt dismissal or merely the expiration of temporary appointments due to the transition from PAFCA to PSCA and CSC policies.
- Whether mandamus is an available remedy to compel reappointment or reinstatement under these facts.
- Whether the lower court's award of back wages and attorney’s fees to Rosario V. Cerillo was proper and sustainable.
Supreme Court Holding / Disposition
- The petition is GRANTED.
- The challenged Decision dated January 31, 1994, insofar as it ordered reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo and the payment to her of back wages and attorney’s fees, is declared null and void and is set aside.
- The Order dated June 29, 1994 of respondent Judge Sa