Romualdez v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norberto A. Romualdez III had a prior permanent appointment as a Commercial Attache for twelve years. On September 1, 1987, he was transferred to the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) and given a temporary appointment as Deputy Administrator for Industrial Research and Market Development. This temporary appointment was renewed for an additional six months, expiring on February 28, 1989. Procedural History: Upon the expiration of his temporary appointment on February 28, 1989, the PCA Governing Board did not renew it. Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on February 6, 1990, requesting reinstatement and invoking CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29. The CSC denied his request, ruling that the circular was not applicable as it took effect after his separation from service and that reappointment was discretionary. The PCA subsequently appointed Mr. Roman Santos to the position on May 11, 1990. The CSC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to compel the CSC to reinstate him and extend a permanent appointment. He argues that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolutions, questions the applicability of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, and asserts that appointing authorities are mandated to extend permanent appointments to qualified individuals. He further claims the CSC failed to enforce civil service laws and protect his security of tenure and due process rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to capricious, whimsical, and despotic refusal to perform a legal/constitutional duty in issuing Resolution Nos. 90-407 and 90-693, and whether Civil Service Commission Circular No. 29, Series 1989, is applicable to the appointment of the petitioner as PCA Deputy Administrator for Industrial Research and Market Development. Whether the petitioner is entitled to security of tenure given his temporary appointment. Whether it is mandatory for an appointing authority to extend permanent appointments to selected appointees with corresponding civil service eligibilities. Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and/or non-feasance/misfeasance in office by not enforcing the Civil Service Law and affording the petitioner due process.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission denying the petitioner's request for reinstatement and permanent appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the applicability of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29: The Court held that the Civil Service Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's appointment was temporary and for a definite period, which expired on February 28, 1989. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, Series 1989, took effect on July 19, 1989, after the petitioner had already been separated from the service. Therefore, it could not be given retrospective effect to apply to his case. Even if it were applicable, the circular itself recognizes that the appointing authority has a wide latitude of discretion in selecting personnel. The PCA exercised its discretion not to extend the petitioner's appointment, and this discretion cannot be compelled by mandamus. On the issue of security of tenure and temporary appointments: The Court reiterated that a temporary appointment does not confer security of tenure. When the petitioner accepted the temporary appointment, he was effectively divested of any claim to security of tenure in that position. A temporary appointment is dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power and does not grant the appointee a definite tenure. The case of Tolentino v. de Jesus and other cited cases support the principle that accepting a temporary appointment means the appointee is not entitled to the security of tenure. On the issue of mandatory permanent appointments: The Court clarified that the matter of converting a temporary appointment to a permanent one is addressed to the sound discretion of the appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission's duty is to approve or disapprove appointments based on qualifications and eligibility, not to compel an appointing authority to extend a permanent appointment if it is not disposed to do so. The petition for mandamus was inappropriate because it sought to compel a discretionary duty, and the petitioner had not shown a clear legal right to the position or to a permanent appointment. On the issue of due process: The Court found that the petitioner was not denied due process. His separation from the service was due to the expiration of his temporary appointment, not a removal from office. Having accepted a temporary appointment with a definite period, he could not claim a denial of due process when the appointment was not renewed upon its lapse. The principle established in cases like Festejo v. Barreras indicates that the non-renewal of a temporary appointment does not constitute removal.
Main Doctrine
A temporary appointment, by its nature, does not confer security of tenure, and the renewal or conversion of such an appointment to a permanent one is discretionary on the part of the appointing authority, which cannot be compelled by mandamus.