Dimayuga v. Benedicto II
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Chona M. Dimayuga was issued a permanent appointment as Executive Director II of the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) on October 26, 1992. At that time, the position was not part of the Career Executive Service (CES). On June 4, 1993, the position was included in the CES. Petitioner alleged that she was subjected to administrative and criminal complaints to coerce her removal. She was placed under a ninety-day suspension order on November 28, 1997, and a second ninety-day suspension order on March 26, 1998. Upon expiration of the second suspension, she re-assumed her duties but was then "temporarily detailed" to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and directed to assist in the evaluation of appealed cases, which she considered a demotion and protested by filing a leave of absence. Procedural History: On September 22, 1998, petitioner received a letter informing her that respondent Mariano E. Benedicto II had been appointed Executive Director II of the TRB in her stead, citing a memorandum regarding non-career officials being co-terminous with the outgoing administration. Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her suit. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner lacked the required eligibility for the CES position, and thus her permanent status only allowed her to occupy the position until replaced by someone with the required eligibility. It further ruled that she had no vested right to the post and no security of tenure. The Petition: Aggrieved by the dismissal of her quo warranto petition, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that she had no vested right, that her refusal to vacate was contrary to the President's power of appointment and removal, and that her claim to security of tenure was rejected.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Ma. Chona M. Dimayuga has a vested right to the position of Executive Director II of the Toll Regulatory Board and whether her claim to security of tenure is valid. Whether petitioner's refusal to vacate her position runs counter to the executive powers of the President regarding appointment and removal. Whether the application of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21 is applicable to the petitioner's situation. Whether the nature of petitioner's appointment was permanent or temporary. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for quo warranto and whether petitioner is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 25, 2000, rendered by the Seventeenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54733, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of vested right and security of tenure: The Court held that petitioner did not possess the required eligibility for the Career Executive Service (CES) position of Executive Director II. A permanent appointment can only be issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility. Since petitioner lacked the CES eligibility, her appointment, even if designated as permanent, was considered temporary. Consequently, she did not acquire security of tenure in the position. The Court reiterated the principle that security of tenure in the CES pertains to rank, not to a specific position, and that non-CES eligibles holding CES positions do not acquire permanency. On the issue of the President's power of appointment and removal: The Court affirmed that petitioner's refusal to vacate the position ran counter to the executive powers of the President. The President's broad latitude in exercising the power of appointment, which includes the power of removal, would be undermined if unqualified individuals could claim permanent status in CES positions. Such a situation would render the appointing authority helpless in exercising these powers. On the application of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21: The Court found that Section 4 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, which petitioner relied upon, was not applicable to her situation. The circular pertains to incumbents of positions declared as CES for the first time. Petitioner's position was classified as part of the CES in 1993, prior to the issuance of the circular in 1994. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that even if the circular were applicable, it could not override established jurisprudence, such as Achacoso v. Macaraig, which holds that a permanent appointment requires the prescribed eligibility. On the nature of petitioner's appointment: The Court clarified that petitioner's appointment as Executive Director II, lacking the CES eligibility, was at best temporary. Therefore, it could be withdrawn at will by the appointing authority. The Court cited De Leon v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that a person without the requisite qualifications for a CES position cannot be considered a permanent appointee and can be transferred or reassigned without violating security of tenure. On the dismissal of the quo warranto petition and damages: Given that petitioner did not possess security of tenure due to her lack of eligibility, her claim to the position was without merit. Consequently, the dismissal of her quo warranto petition was proper. As her claim to the position was unfounded, she was not entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
Main Doctrine
A permanent appointment to a Career Executive Service (CES) position is only valid if the appointee possesses the required eligibility. Without the requisite eligibility, the appointment is considered temporary, and the appointee does not possess security of tenure and can be transferred or removed at will by the appointing authority.