TABLE OF CONTENTS

Province of CamSur vs. CA

Gloria vs. de Guzman

Province of Camarines Sur v. CA | CM

On October 12, 1972, he was promoted and was

appointed Assistant Provincial warden by then
Governor Felix Alfelor, Sr. Because he had no civil
service eligibility for the position he was appointed to,
private respondent Tito Dato could not be legally
extended a permanent appointment. Hence, what was
extended to him was only a temporary appointment
renewed annually.

On January 1, 1974, Governor Alfelor approved the

change in Dato's employment status from temporary
to permanent upon the latter's representation that he
passed the civil service examination for supervising
security guards.

Said change of status however, was not favorably

acted upon by the CSC as Dato did not possess the
necessary civil service eligibility for the office he was
appointed to (ratio says CSC approved as
only temporary pending validation of the results of
Dato's examination for supervising security guard). His
appointment therefore remained temporary.

Thereafter, no other appointment was extended to

him.

On March 16, 1976, private respondent Tito Dato was

indefinitely suspended by Governor Alfelor after
criminal charges were filed against him and a prison
guard for allegedly conniving and/or consenting to
evasion of sentence of some detention prisoners who
escaped from confinement.

2 years after the request for change of status was

made, Mr. Lope B. Rama, head of the Camarines Sur
Unit of the CSC, wrote the Governor informing him that
the status of Tito Dato has been changed from
temporary to permanent, the latter having passed the
examination for Supervising Security Guard. The
change of status was to be made retroactive to June
11, 1974, the date of release of said examination.

Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, suppressed

the appropriation for the position of Assistant Provincial
Warden and deleted Datos name from the province's
plantilla.

Tito Dato was subsequently acquitted of the charges.

He requested the Governor for reinstatement and
backwages.

His request unheeded, Tito Dato filed an action

for mandamus before the RTC

RTC ordered

July 14, 1995

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR through its GOVERNOR,
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN
and
PROVINCIAL
TREASURER, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TITO B. DATO, respondent.
KAPUNAN, J.:
SUMMARY: Tito Dato was appointed Assistant Provincial
Warden in 1972 but only in a temporary capacity as he did not
yet have civil service eligibility. In 1974, Governor Alfelor
approved the change in Datos employment status to permanent
as Dato had passed the civil service exam, but CSC said the
appointment was temporary pending validation of the exam
results. Dato was indefinitely suspended and his name deleted
form the plantilla. CSC wrote changing the status to permanent,
retroacting yo yhr date of release of the exam. Dato asked for
reinstatement and backwages. RTC and CA ruled in favour of
Dato but the SC reversed. Datos subsequent qualification for
civil service eligibility did notipso facto convert his temporary
status to that of permanent. CSC took on the power of the
appointing authority when it declared Datos appointment
permanent. He being a temporary employee is thus not entitled
to backwages
DOCTRINE: What is required is a new appointment since a
permanent appointment is not a continuation of the temporary
appointment
CSC has the power to approve or disapprove an appointment set
before it. It does not have the power to make the appointment
itself or to direct the appointing authority to change the
employment status of an employee. The CSC can only inquire
into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a position and if it
finds the person qualified it must so attest. If not, the appointment
must be disapproved.
FACTS:

On January 1, 1960, private respondent Tito Dato was

appointed as Private Agent by the then governor of
Camarines Sur, Apolonio Maleniza.

PUB OFF: WEEK 4B 1

1) the appropriation and payment of the back salaries

of Dato equivalent to five (5) years without qualification
or deduction, at the rate of P14,532.00 per annum, with
all the rights and privileges

temporary appointment these are two distinct acts

of the appointing authority.

What is shown in the letter by Mr. Lope Rama to the

Governor of Camarines Sur1 is a clear arrogation (takeover) of power properly belonging to the appointing
authority. Time and again, the Court has defined the
parameters within which the power of approval of
appointments shall be exercised by the Civil Service
Commission.

Luego v. Civil Service Commission: CSC has the

power to approve or disapprove an appointment set
before it. It does not have the power to make the
appointment itself or to direct the appointing
authority to change the employment status of an
employee. The CSC can only inquire into the eligibility
of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds the
person qualified it must so attest. If not, the appointment
must be disapproved. The duty of the CSC is to attest
appointments and after that function is discharged, its
participation in the appointment process ceases.

2) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

3) costs.

CA affirmed

Province of Camarines Sur interposed the present

petition submitting that the respondent court erred in
(a) affirming the trial court's finding that private
respondent Tito Dato was its permanent employee at
the time he was suspended on March 16, 1976; and
(b) modifying the said decision so as to allow private
respondent to claim backwages for the entire period of
his suspension.

ISSUE/HELD: WON Tito Dato was a permanent employee of

petitioner Province of Camarines Sur at the time he was
suspended on March 16, 1976.(NO)
RATIO:
Petitioner Province of CamSur contends that when
Governor Alfelor recommended to CSC the change in
the employment status of Dato from temporary to
permanent,
which
the
CSC
approved
as
only temporary pending validation of the results of
Dato's examination for supervising security guard,
Dato's appointment in effect remained temporary.
Hence, his subsequent qualification for civil service
eligibility did notipso facto convert his temporary status
to that of permanent.

SC: We agree with the Province

At the time Dato was appointed Assistant Provincial

Warden on January 1, 1974, he had not yet qualified in
an appropriate examination for the aforementioned
position. Such lack of a civil service eligibility made his
appointment temporary and without a fixed and definite
term and is dependent entirely upon the pleasure of the
appointing power.

The fact that private respondent obtained civil service

eligibility later on is of no moment as his having passed
the supervising security guard examination, did
not ipso factoconvert his temporary appointment
into a permanent one.
What is required is a new appointment since a
permanent appointment is not a continuation of the

CAB: CSC should have ended its participation in the

appointment of private respondent on January 1, 1974
when it confirmed the temporary status of the latter who
lacked the proper civil service eligibility. When it issued
the foregoing communication on March 19, 1976, it
stepped on the toes of the appointing authority,
thereby encroaching on the discretion vested solely
upon the latter.

Moreover, the Court is not prepared to accord said

letter any probative value, the same being merely a
purported photocopy of the alleged letter, initialed and
not even signed by the proper officer of the CSC.

NOT ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES

Tito Dato, being merely a temporary employee, is not

entitled to the relief he seeks, including his claim for
backwages for the entire period of his suspension.

1 This refers to the latest approved appointment of Mr. TITO DATO as Asst.
Provincial Warden, this province, at P3600, effective January 1, 1974 which was
approved by this Office as temporary pending validation of his Supervising Security
Guard eligibility.
It appears, however, that the aforementioned eligibility of Mr. Dato was released on
June 11, 1974. In this connection, attention is being invited to Sec. 19, Rule III of the
Rules on Personnel Action and Policies which provides that "Eligibility resulting from
civil service examination . . . shall be effective on the date on the release of the
results of the examination. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) Mr. Dato's Supervising
Security Guard eligibility, therefore, takes effect June 11, 1974, the date the results
thereof was released.
In view thereof, the aforementioned appointment of Mr. Dato is hereby approved
anew as follows: "APPROVED as temporary under Sec. 24 (c), R.A. 2260, as
amended, effective January 1, 1974 up to June 10, 1974 and as permanent under
Sec. 24 (b), R.A. 2260, as amended, subject to the report on his physical and
medical examination as to insurability, effective June 11, 1974. The Supervising
Security Guard eligibility of Mr. Dato has been validated by the Civil Service
Commission, Quezon City.

PUB OFF: WEEK 4B 2

DISPOSITIVE. REVERSED. petition for mandamus instituted by

herein private respondent Tito Dato is hereby DISMISSED.

Gloria v. De Guzman | Dan

9 October 1995
SEC. RICARDO T. GLORIA, in his capacity as Secretary of
Education, Culture & Sports and Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA);
JULIAN J. LOLENG, JR., in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of
PSCA; and BOARD OF TRUSTEES of PSCA, petitioners, vs.
HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge of
Branch 113, Regional Trial Court of Pasay, Metro Manila;
VIRGILIO R. RAMOS, LEONY P. SENDIN, ROSARIO V.
CERILLO, ANDREA A. PESTANO, ARTHUR V. RODRIGUEZA,
LENI V. DIMAYUGA, JAIME ABON, RIZALDO O. VALLE, JOIE
ARCEO, SHIRLEY PESTANO, SERVANDO SACUEZA, JAIME
C. PONEGAL, EDGARDO MERCADO, CRISTINA BULADO,
BENIGNO T. AQUINO, RODEL PESTANO, JUN JAY PARMA,
NILO B. ELLO, and NELSON SACUEZA, respondents.
NATURE: Petition for Certiorari before the SC
SUMMARY: Respondents Ramos, et al. were issued temporary
appointments to various positions in the Philippine Air Force
College of Aeronautics (PAFCA). Cerillo, one of the
Respondents, was issued a one-year temporary appointment to
the position of Board Secretary II. Cerillo was later removed due
to loss of confidence, but was later designated to the position of
Coordinator for Extension Services. CSC later wrote to PAFCA
stating that temporary appointments were good and renewable
only up to 1992. On 7 December 1992, OIC Col. Loleng of
PAFCA (now the Philippine State College of Aeronautics or
PSCA) notified Ramos, et al. that they shall be deemed
terminated upon expiration of their temporary appointments. On
25 June 1993, Ramos, et al. filed a Petition for Mandamus and
Reinstatement before RTC Pasay. Respondent Judge de
Guzman ruled that Cerillo should be reinstated to the position of
Coordinator. Hence, Petitioners Sec. Gloria, et al. filed the instant
Petition for Certiorari before the SC. The SC held that Cerillo was
merely designated to the position; thus, she had not right to be
reinstated thereto. Moreover, as the position did not exist in
PSCAs plantilla, the Board could not make appointments to that
position. The SC also held that Cerillo could not be reinstated to
the position of Board Secretary II as she as already dismissed
due to loss of confidence. Thus, Cerillo is not entitled to
attorneys fees and costs. Petition granted.
DOCTRINE:

A mere designation does not confer upon the designee

security of tenure in the position or office which he occupies
in an acting capacity only.

The choice of an appointee from among those who

possessed the required qualifications is a political and
administrative decision calling for considerations of wisdom,
convenience, utility and the interests of the service which
can be best made by the Head of the office concerned.

Reinstatement is technically issuance of a new appointment

which is essentially discretionary, to be performed by the
officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the
only condition being that the appointee should possess the
qualifications required by law.
o Such exercise of the discretionary power of
appointment cannot be controlled, not even by the
Court as long as it is exercised properly by the
appointing authority.
FACTS:

Respondents Ramos, et al. were employees of the

Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA).

PAFCA was created by virtue of PD 1078 on 26 January

1977.
o Under the Decree, the Board of Trustees (Board)
has the authority to appoint officials and employees
of the college except the Members of the Board of
Trustees and the President of the college.
On 1 April 1991, the Board issued Resolution 91-026 which
declared that [a]ll faculty/administrative employees are also
subject to the required civil service eligibilities, in
accordance with pertinent civil service law, rules, and
regulations.
o Ramos, et al. were thus issued only temporary
appointments because at the time of their
appointment, they either lacked the appropriate civil
service eligibilities or otherwise failed to meet the
necessary qualification standards for their
respective positions.
Respondent Rosario Cerillo was issued a one-year
temporary appointment (from 1 January 1992 to 31
December 1992) to the position of Board Secretary II of
PAFCA (now PSCA).
o According to a letter2 from the CSC, dated 25
March 1992, temporary appointments were good
and renewable only up to 1992.
On 24 March 1992, Cerillo was relieved of her position by
reason of loss of confidence.
o Cerillo was later designated as Coordinator for
Extension Services.
On 3 June 1992, RA 7605 was enacted to law and it
converted PAFCA into a state college to be known as
Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA).
o The Board, still the governing body, retained its
power to make appointments.
o Petitioner Col. Julian Loleng, Jr. remained OIC by
virtue of his designation to the same position made
by then DECS Sec. Cario on 8 June 1992.
It was only on 7 December 1992 that Col. Loleng informed
Ramos, et al. that they shall be deemed separated from the
service upon the expiration of their temporary appointments.
o Ramos, et al. objected and pointed out that under
Resolution 91-026, the Board declared that all
faculty/administrative employees of the college,
while required to acquire civil service eligibilities
under pertinent civil service law, rules and
regulations, must exert effort to acquire civil service
eligibilities within a period of three years from their
temporary appointments.

Ramos, et al. believed this to mean that

should they acquire civil service eligibilities
within the three-year period, they could not
be terminated from the service.
On 25 June 1993, barely five months after the lapse of their
temporary appointments, Ramos, et al. filed a Petition for
Mandamus and Reinstatement, with Back Wages and
Damages before RTC Pasay City, presided over by
Respondent Judge Salvador de Guzman.
o Ramos, et al. prayed that then DECS Sec. Fabella
complete the filling-up of positions in the Board and

2 xxxxxx

xxxPlease note that temporary appointments last only for a maximum of

one (1) year and all personnel appointed in a temporary capacity can be replaced
any time by a civil service eligible. Since you have just been recently covered by the
Civil Service Law and rules, this Field Office approved all your temporary
appointments subject to yearly renewal up to 1992 only. Subsequent appointments
should strictly conform with civil service policies. You may, therefore, advise all your
temporary personnel to take civil service examinations in order to be eligible for
appointment.

PUB OFF: WEEK 4B 3

order the latter to reinstate Ramos, et al. to their

respective positions.
Petitioners Sec. Gloria (then DECS Sec.), Col. Loleng, Jr.,
and the Board filed an Answer opposing the Petition.
o Mandamus will not lie to compel reinstatement
because the reappointment prayed for is
discretionary on the part of the appointing power.
o Moreover, mandamus will not lie due to Ramos, et
al.s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Judge de Guzman ruled that Cerillo should be reinstated to
the position of Coordinator for Extension Services.
o Thus, Petitioners Sec. Gloria, et al. filed the instant
Petition for Certiorari before the SC.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the reinstatement of Cerillo to the

position of Coordinator for Extension Services is proper (NO)
RATIO 1:

The SC held that Judge de Guzmans decision ordering

reinstatement of Cerillo to the position of Coordinator for
Extension Services finds no support as to facts and the
law.

Although Cerillo was extended a temporary appointment as

Board Secretary II, she was already dismissed due to loss of
confidence.
o Cerillo neither contested nor appealed the
dismissal.

Thus, her dismissal as Board Secretary II cannot be the

subject of the Petition for Mandamus and Reinstatement.

Moreover, Cerillos assignment as Coordinator for Extension

Services was a mere designation.
o Not being a permanent appointment, the
designation to the position cannot be the subject of
a case for reinstatement.

Granting arguendo that Cerillo could be validly reinstated to

the position of Coordinator for Extension Services, her
reinstatement thereto would not be possible because the
position is not provided for in the PSCA plantilla PSCA
cannot make any valid appointment to this inexistent
position.
o This is probably the reason that she was merely
designated to such position.

As a mere designee, she could not have

acquired any right to the position even if
the position existed.
Sevilla v. CA: A mere designation does not confer upon
the designee security of tenure in the position or office
which he occupies in an acting capacity only.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not Cerillo can be reinstated to the position
of Board Secretary II (NO)
RATIO 2:
The SC held that Cerillo could no longer be reinstated to the
position of Board Secretary II.
Cerillo had already been dismissed from said position due to
loss of confidence.
o Cerillo did not contest this dismissal possible
because the position of Board Secretary II is
primarily confidential and the Board of Trustees,
when finding her, the incumbent to the position, to
be wanting in faithfulness and integrity dismissed
her for that reason alone.
Even if Cerillo passed the requisite Civil Service Examination
after the termination of her temporary appointment, such fact
cannot compel the Board to reappoint her.
o Acquisition of civil service eligibility is not the
sole factor for reappointment.

Other
factors
to
be
considered:
performance, degree of education, work
experience, training, seniority, and, more
importantly, as in this case, whether or
not the applicant enjoys the confidence
and trust of the appointing power.

The position of Board Secretary II is

primarily confidential, requiring as it does
not only confidence in the aptitude of the
appointee for the duties of the office but
primarily close intimacy which ensures
freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust or confidential matters of
state. (Delos Santos v. Mallari)

Avila v. CSC: The choice of an appointee

from among those who possessed the
required qualifications is a political and
administrative decision calling for
considerations
of
wisdom,
convenience, utility and the interests of
the service which can be best made by
the Head of the office concerned.
PSCA Board Resolution 91-026 must yield to the CSC
policies on the issuance of temporary appointments.
o When CSC directed that the temporary
appointments were to be effective only until 1992, it
did so in pursuance of the general purpose of the
civil service law under Sec. 2 of RA 22603.

Thus CSC is vested with the function,

among others, to promulgate policies,
standards and guidelines for the civil
service and adopt plans and programs to
promote economical, efficient and effective
personnel
administration
in
the
government.4

The SC held that reappointment to the position of Board

Secretary II is an act which is discretionary on the part of the
appointing power; thus, mandamus will not lie.
o Apurillo v. CSC: Reinstatement is technically
issuance of a new appointment which is
essentially discretionary, to be performed by the
officer in which it is vested according to his
best lights, the only condition being that the
appointee should possess the qualifications
required by law.

Alim v. CSC: Such exercise of the

discretionary power of appointment
cannot be controlled, not even by the
Court as long as it is exercised
properly by the appointing authority.

Thus, Judge de Guzmans decision amounts to an undue

interference by the Court in the exercise of the discretionary
power of appointment vested in the Board.
o The SC observed that Judge de Guzman stated
that: The appointment of the petitioners to their
former positions is not a matter of right; rather, it is
a matter of discretion on the part of the
respondents. Mandamus cannot be availed of to

[T]o ensure and promote the constitutional mandate regarding appointments

only according to merit and fitness and to provide within the public service a
progressive system of personal administration to ensure the maintenance of an
honest andefficient progressive and courteous civil service in the Philippines.

4 Sec. 12(3), Chapter 3-A, Book V of the RAC.

PUB OFF: WEEK 4B 4

compel anyone to exercise his discretion absent

any showing of grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE 3: Whether or not Ramos, et al.s services were
terminated (NO)
RATIO 3:

The SC agreed with Judge de Guzmans view that there was

no termination ordered.
o Either the employees contracts lapsed or their
temporary appointments were abrogated by CSC
circulars, which was a necessary consequence of
the transition from the PAFCA to the PSCA.

As held by Judge de Guzman: To the question was the

termination of the services of the petitioners legal or not?
[sic], the only answer is there was not termination to speak
of. Termination presupposes an overt act committed by a
superior officer. There was none whatsoever in the case at
bar. At most, Col. Julian (Loleng) gave notice to the
petitioners of the expiration of their respective contracts.
Petitioners [sic] appointment or employment simply expired
either by its very own terms, or because it may not exceed
one year, but most importantly because the PAFCA was

dissolved and replaced by the PSCA. The notice given by

Col. Loleng to the petitioners seem to have been
misunderstood by them as an act of dismissal which as they
correctly state, belongs to the Board of Trustees alone.
ISSUE 4: Whether or not Cerillo is entitled to attorneys fees and
costs (NO)
RATIO 4:

This issue has become moot and academic.

At any rate, the SC said award could not have been imposed
in the first place
o Even if it was directly ordered in the dispositive
portion, it was neither discussed nor justified in the
body of the decision.

Policarpio v. CA: The reason for the award of attorney's fees

must be stated in the text of the decision, otherwise, if it is
stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision, the
same shall be disallowed.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition granted; RTC decision set aside.

PUB OFF: WEEK 4B 5