Title
Norberto A. Romualdez III vs. Civil Service Commission and the Philippine Coconut Authority
Case
G.R. No. 94878-81
Decision Date
May 15, 1991
Romualdez, a temporary PCA appointee, sought reinstatement after non-renewal; SC ruled no security of tenure, CSC circular inapplicable, and appointing authority's discretion upheld.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94878-81)

Appointment History

Romualdez was initially appointed as a Commercial Attache in September 1975 and held this permanent position until August 30, 1987. On September 1, 1987, he accepted a temporary appointment with the PCA as Deputy Administrator, which was set to last until August 30, 1988. The appointment was subsequently renewed for six months, from September 1, 1988 to February 28, 1989. However, his reappointment was not extended upon its expiration, leading to an appeal to the CSC.

Application and Rejection of Petition

On February 6, 1990, Romualdez sought reinstatement through the CSC, referencing CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29 issued on July 19, 1989. The CSC denied his request on May 2, 1990, concluding that the circular was not retroactive to his situation and that re-appointment was at the discretion of the appointing authority, which had opted not to renew his temporary appointment.

Legal Arguments Presented

Romualdez raised multiple issues in his petition, including allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the CSC and the PCA, the applicability of CSC Circular No. 29 to his case, and whether there was a legal obligation for the appointing authority to extend permanent appointments to individuals with civil service eligibility. He contended that the failure to extend his appointment constituted a denial of due process and infracted his rights to tenure under the Civil Service Law.

Court Decision and Reasoning

The Court dismissed the petition, highlighting that Romualdez held a temporary appointment, which inherently offered no job security or entitlement to renewal. The principle that temporary appointments lack definitive tenure was underscored, emphasizing that the authority to convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one rests solely with the discretion of the appointing authority.

Mandamus and Discretionary Duty

The Court noted that a discretionary duty, such as the extension of an appointment, cannot be compelled by mandamus. Since the PCA exercised its discr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.