Philippine Economic Zone Authority Board of Directors v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gloria J. Mercado was appointed Group Manager for Policy and Planning of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) on September 16, 1998, on a temporary basis. On May 16, 1999, she was promoted to Deputy Director General for Policy and Planning on a permanent basis, with an annotation stating "NO SECURITY OF TENURE UNLESS HE/SHE OBTAINS CESO OR CSEE ELIGIBILITY." On June 1, 2000, PEZA Director General Lilia B. de Lima advised respondent of the termination of her appointment, and the PEZA Board appointed Wilhelm G. Ortaliz, a CESO eligible, to the same position. Procedural History: Respondent filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and damages with injunction against petitioners and Ortaliz, questioning the PEZA Board Resolution appointing Ortaliz. Respondent alleged that her Master in National Security Administration (MNSA) degree conferred CES eligibility, that Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8748 amended R.A. 7916 (PEZA Charter) to remove the CES eligibility requirement, and that her termination was in bad faith. Petitioners countered that her MNSA degree only granted a CESO rank, not eligibility, and thus she lacked security of tenure. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed respondent's petition, holding that CES eligibility was still required, her MNSA degree did not confer it, and her appointment was temporary. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that respondent was promoted to permanent status, her MNSA degree automatically conferred CES eligibility, and even if not, R.A. 8748 removed the requirement. The CA later amended its decision to grant back salaries but denied damages. The Petition: Petitioners sought reversal of the CA's decision, arguing that respondent lacked security of tenure due to not possessing CES eligibility.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Gloria J. Mercado possessed security of tenure in her position as PEZA Deputy Director General for Policy and Planning. Whether the MNSA degree automatically conferred CES eligibility upon respondent. Whether Republic Act No. 8748 removed the CES eligibility requirement for the position of PEZA Deputy Director General. Whether respondent's subsequent passing of the CES examinations in late 2000 retroacted to grant her security of tenure at the time of her termination.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Court of Appeals Decision of December 14, 2005, Amended Decision of March 31, 2006 and Resolution of March 31, 2006 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The December 4, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent possessed security of tenure: Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service (CES) requires passing the CES examinations, conferment of CES eligibility by the CES Board, compliance with other prescribed requirements, and appointment to a CES rank by the President. Respondent admitted she did not undergo the full CES eligibility examinations prior to or during her incumbency. Therefore, she did not possess security of tenure in her position, and her appointment was temporary and could be terminated at any time. On whether the MNSA degree conferred CES eligibility: The Court held that the MNSA degree, as per CES Board Resolution No. 204, was merely accredited as equivalent to passing the Management Aptitude Test Battery (MATB), which is only the first stage of the CES eligibility examination process. To acquire CES eligibility and rank, one must proceed to the subsequent stages of the examination and meet other requirements. Executive Orders No. 696 and 771, which granted preference or rank to NDCP graduates, did not equate to automatic CES eligibility. The CES Board certification confirmed that respondent was not a CES eligible. On whether R.A. 8748 removed the CES eligibility requirement: The Court found the contention that R.A. 8748 removed the CES eligibility requirement untenable. While the amendment to Section 11 of R.A. 7916 by R.A. 8748 did not explicitly retain the CES eligibility requirement for Deputy Directors General, the Court agreed with the trial court that this was not the intention of the lawmakers. The position is high-ranking, requiring specialized knowledge, and removing the CES eligibility would be absurd. The Civil Service Commission CESB's certification that the position requires appropriate CES eligibility is entitled to great weight. On whether subsequent passing of CES examinations retroacted: Respondent's passing of the CES examinations in late 2000 did not retroact to the time of her termination on June 1, 2000. Eligibility and security of tenure are determined at the time of appointment and termination, not by subsequent events. Since she was not a CES eligible at the time of her termination, her appointment was temporary and could be validly terminated.
Main Doctrine
A temporary appointment, even if annotated as permanent with a condition, does not confer security of tenure. Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service (CES) requires passing the CES examinations, conferment of CES eligibility, compliance with other CES Board requirements, and appointment to a CES rank. An MNSA degree is not equivalent to CES eligibility but merely to the first stage of the CES eligibility examination process.