Title
Romualdez III vs. Civil Service Commission
Case
G.R. No. 94878-94881
Decision Date
May 15, 1991
Romualdez, a temporary PCA appointee, sought reinstatement after non-renewal, invoking CSC Circular No. 29. SC ruled his temporary appointment lacked security of tenure; CSC did not abuse discretion, dismissing his petition.
temporary appointment
security of tenure
due process
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94878-94881)

Factual Background

Norberto A. Romualdez III had permanent civil service status as Commercial Attache and served continuously in that post from September 1975 until August 30, 1987. On September 1, 1987, he accepted transfer to the Philippine Coconut Authority and received an appointment styled as “reinstatement” to the position of Deputy Administrator for Industrial Research and Market Development on a temporary basis for the period September 1, 1987 to August 30, 1988, and subsequently for another six months from September 1, 1988 to February 28, 1989, subject to conditions to which he agreed. When the appointment was not renewed on February 28, 1989, the Acting Chairman of PCA informed petitioner that the Governing Board had declined renewal.

Administrative Proceedings Before the Civil Service Commission

Petitioner filed an administrative appeal with the Civil Service Commission on February 6, 1990 seeking reinstatement and invoking CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989. The CSC issued Resolution No. 90-407 on May 2, 1990 denying the petition on the ground that Circular No. 29 could not be applied retroactively to a person already separated from the service on February 28, 1989 and that reappointment rested essentially within the discretion of the appointing authority. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CSC denied in Resolution No. 90-693 dated July 31, 1990. Meanwhile, on May 11, 1990, PCA appointed Mr. Roman Santos to the contested position.

Relief Sought in the Petition to the Court

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for injunctive relief, seeking an order compelling the Civil Service Commission to enforce reinstatement and to require PCA to extend a permanent appointment. The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion by CSC in issuing its resolutions, challenged the applicability of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989, contended that appointing authorities are mandated to extend permanent appointments to qualified appointees, and invoked constitutional protections of security of tenure and due process under the 1987 Constitution and the Civil Service Law under P.D. 807.

Issues Presented

The principal legal questions presented were whether CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989 applied to petitioner; whether the appointing authority was compelled to convert petitioner’s temporary appointment into a permanent appointment; whether CSC committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to compel PCA to extend a permanent appointment; and whether petitioner was denied his constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and due process.

Position of the Petitioner

Petitioner maintained that he belonged to the career service and that CSC Circular No. 29 required issuance of a permanent appointment where the appointee met position requirements, including appropriate eligibility under Section 25(a) of P.D. 807. He asserted that CSC’s refusal to enforce the Circular and PCA’s failure to grant a permanent appointment amounted to grave abuse of discretion, denial of due process, and a failure to afford the protective security of tenure guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution.

Position of the Respondents

The Civil Service Commission held that its Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989 could not be given retrospective effect to benefit petitioner because it took effect on July 19, 1989, after petitioner had already been separated on February 28, 1989. The CSC further observed that the conversion of a temporary appointment to a permanent one rested within the wide discretion of the appointing authority and that the CSC’s role was limited to attestation of qualifications and eligibilities. The Philippine Coconut Authority exercised its discretion not to renew the temporary appointment and later appointed another person to the post.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court, through Justice Gancayco, dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the CSC’s determinations. The Court held that petitioner’s appointment to PCA was temporary and that by accepting such temporary employment he had been effectively divested of security of tenure as to that post. The Court sustained CSC’s conclusion that Circular No. 29 could not be applied retroactively to revive petitioner’s claim after his separation. The Court further held that the conversion of a temporary appointment to permanent status is a discretionary matter for the appointing authority and that mandamus cannot compel the performance of a discretionary act.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a temporary appointment confers no definite tenure and is dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power, citing established precedents on the nature of temporary appointments. The Court emphasized that the duty of the Civil Service Commission is to approve or disapprove appointments by determining whether the appointee possesses the required qualifications and appropriate civil service eligibility, not to direct appointing authorities to make appointments they decline to make. The Court accepted CSC’s non-retroactivity conclusion as to CSC Memorandum Circular

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms