View full case

SEC. RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN

FACTS:

This case involves a controversy between the petitioners, Hon. Ricardo T. Gloria, in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA), Col. Julian J. Loleng, Jr., in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of the PSCA, and the Board of Trustees of the PSCA, and the private respondents. The private respondents were temporary employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA), which was converted into the PSCA. The private respondents were issued one-year temporary appointments and were later dismissed from their positions on different dates. During the incumbency of the succeeding DECS Secretary, the private respondents filed a petition for mandamus and reinstatement before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The court ordered the reinstatement of private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services". The petitioners argue that Cerillo's dismissal as Board Secretary II was not the subject of the petition and that the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services" does not exist in the PSCA plantilla.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not private respondent's designation as "Coordinator for Extension Services" can be the subject of a case for reinstatement.

  2. Whether or not private respondent can be reinstated to the position of Board Secretary II.

  3. Whether the order of reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo amounts to an undue interference by the Court in the exercise of the discretionary power of appointment vested in the PSCA Board of Trustees.

  4. Whether the termination of the services of the private respondents was legal and proper.

RULING:

  1. The designation of private respondent as "Coordinator for Extension Services" was not a permanent appointment, thus it cannot be the subject of a case for reinstatement.

  2. Private respondent cannot be reinstated to the position of Board Secretary II as she had already been dismissed from this position for loss of confidence.

  3. The order of reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo amounts to an undue interference by the Court in the exercise of the discretionary power of appointment vested in the PSCA Board of Trustees.

  4. The termination of the services of the private respondents was legal and proper as it was a consequence of the Board of Trustees' power to appoint.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A mere "designation" does not confer security of tenure on the designee.

  • Reinstatement is technically the issuance of a new appointment, which is discretionary on the part of the appointing power and cannot be the subject of an application for a writ of mandamus.

  • The appointment to a primarily confidential position requires not only qualifications but also the confidence and trust of the appointing power.

  • The power of appointment is essentially discretionary and should be performed by the officer vested with such power, as long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law.

  • Mandamus cannot be availed of to compel anyone to exercise his discretion absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  • Termination presupposes an overt act committed by a superior officer, and in the absence of such act, termination cannot be said to have occurred.