Binamira v. Garrucho, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Ramon P. Binamira claims he was unlawfully removed from his position as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). He asserts he was initially designated to this role by the Minister of Tourism on April 7, 1986, and subsequently assumed office, performing his duties and being acknowledged in that capacity. His tenure was challenged when the new Secretary of Tourism, Peter D. Garrucho, Jr., demanded his resignation on January 2, 1990. 2. Procedural History: Following the demand for his resignation, Binamira filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights, which is not the subject of this case. The core of the current dispute arose when President Corazon C. Aquino issued a memorandum on January 4, 1990, to Secretary Garrucho, stating that Binamira's designation as General Manager was invalid because it was not made by the President as required by law. The President then concurrently designated herself as General Manager. Subsequently, Garrucho took over the position, prompting Binamira to file this quo warranto petition. While the petition was pending, Binamira filed a supplemental petition after President Aquino appointed Jose A. Capistrano as the new General Manager, impleading him as an additional respondent. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for quo warranto filed by Ramon P. Binamira seeking reinstatement as General Manager of the PTA. Binamira argues he possessed security of tenure based on his initial designation by the Minister of Tourism and the subsequent approval of the PTA Board composition by President Aquino, which included him as Vice-Chairman. The petition contends that his removal was without just cause and in violation of his tenure. The core legal issue revolves around the validity of his designation versus a formal appointment, and whether his designation conferred security of tenure under Section 23-A of P.D. No. 564, as amended, which mandates appointment by the President of the Philippines.
Issue(s)
Whether the designation of the petitioner as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority by the Minister of Tourism, instead of appointment by the President, conferred upon him security of tenure. Whether the President's approval of the PTA Board of Directors composition, which included the petitioner as Vice-Chairman by virtue of his designation as General Manager, validated his appointment and conferred security of tenure.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The petitioner never acquired valid title to the disputed position and therefore has no right to be reinstated as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of security of tenure and the validity of the designation: The Court held that the petitioner's claim of security of tenure must fall. Section 23-A of P.D. No. 564 clearly mandates that the General Manager of the PTA shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. The petitioner was merely designated by the Minister of Tourism. The Court distinguished between appointment and designation, stating that appointment involves the selection by the authority vested with power and results in security of tenure, unless replaceable at pleasure. Designation, on the other hand, connotes the imposition of additional duties on an incumbent official or a temporary capacity, which does not confer security of tenure. Even if the designation were considered an appointment, it was invalid because the power to appoint the PTA General Manager is vested in the President and cannot be delegated by the Minister of Tourism. The Court emphasized that an officer to whom discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another unless expressly authorized. On the issue of the President's approval of the Board composition: The Court found the argument that President Aquino's approval of the PTA Board of Directors composition validated Binamira's appointment unpersuasive. The petitioner was included in the Board as Vice-Chairman solely by reason of his designation as General Manager. Since this designation was merely provisional and invalid, its subsequent inclusion in the Board's composition did not cure the defect or confer security of tenure. The President's subsequent memorandum to Secretary Garrucho, which effectively recalled the designation, further demonstrated that the initial act was not considered final or irreversible. The Court reiterated the doctrine that acts of a department head are presumed to be acts of the President only if not disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, and in this case, the President clearly reprobated the designation.
Main Doctrine
A designation, as distinguished from an appointment, confers no security of tenure and may be withdrawn at will by the appointing authority. Furthermore, the power to appoint a General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority, vested by law in the President of the Philippines, cannot be delegated by the Secretary of Tourism.