Gloria v. De Guzman, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents were temporary employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA), later converted to the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA). Their temporary appointments were set to expire on December 31, 1992. Private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo was initially appointed Board Secretary II but was later dismissed due to loss of confidence and subsequently designated as "Coordinator for Extension Services." The Civil Service Commission (CSC) mandated that temporary appointments were valid only up to December 31, 1992, and subsequent appointments should conform to civil service policies, requiring personnel to acquire civil service eligibilities. Procedural History: The private respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus and Reinstatement, with Back Wages and Damages, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, praying for their reinstatement to their respective positions. The RTC, through respondent Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services," along with back wages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners, including the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and the PSCA Board of Trustees, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the decision and order of the RTC. They argued that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Ms. Cerillo, contending that her temporary appointment had expired, her dismissal from Board Secretary II was valid due to loss of confidence, and her designation as Coordinator for Extension Services was not a permanent appointment and the position was not in the PSCA plantilla.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services." Whether private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo is entitled to reinstatement to the position of Board Secretary II, despite her dismissal for loss of confidence and the expiration of her temporary appointment. Whether the termination of the services of the private respondents was proper and legal, considering the expiration of their temporary appointments and the transition from PAFCA to PSCA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the challenged decision and order of the respondent judge null and void and ordered set aside. The temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction was made permanent. The Court held that the reinstatement of Ms. Cerillo was improper and that the termination of the private respondents' services was proper and legal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services." The Court found that Ms. Cerillo's dismissal as Board Secretary II due to loss of confidence was not contested and therefore could not be the subject of the petition for mandamus. Furthermore, her assignment as "Coordinator for Extension Services" was merely a designation, not a permanent appointment, and thus could not be the basis for a reinstatement case. The Court also noted that the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services" was not provided for in the PSCA plantilla, making any appointment thereto invalid. A mere designation does not confer security of tenure. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that reinstatement to the position of Board Secretary II was impermissible. Ms. Cerillo had already been dismissed from this position for loss of confidence, a ground applicable to primarily confidential positions. She did not contest this dismissal and accepted her subsequent designation as Coordinator. The fact that she passed the Civil Service Examination after her termination did not create a right to reappointment, as other factors like performance, qualifications, and the appointing power's confidence are considered. The choice of appointee from those with qualifications is a discretionary administrative decision. On Issue 3: The Court agreed with the respondent judge's disquisition that there was no termination of services to speak of. The employment of the private respondents simply expired by its own terms, as their temporary appointments were valid only up to December 31, 1992, in accordance with Civil Service Commission policies. The dissolution and replacement of PAFCA by PSCA also contributed to the expiration of their employment. The notice given by Col. Loleng was merely an advisory regarding the expiration of their contracts, not an act of dismissal, which belongs to the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the termination was proper and legal as it was a consequence of the expiration of temporary appointments and the transition of the institution.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that the appointment of individuals to positions in the civil service, especially those that are temporary or involve designations, is a discretionary act of the appointing authority. Consequently, the writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel an appointing power to make a reappointment or to reinstate an employee whose temporary appointment has expired or who was dismissed from a primarily confidential position due to loss of confidence. The Court emphasized that such discretionary power, when exercised properly and without grave abuse, is beyond judicial interference, aligning with the principle of merit and fitness in public service.