View full case

RAMON P. BINAMIRA v. PETER D. GARRUCHO

FACTS:

Ramon P. Binamira filed a petition for quo warranto seeking reinstatement as the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). He claimed that he was removed from his position without just cause and in violation of his security of tenure. Binamira based his claim on a communication addressed to him by the Minister of Tourism on April 7, 1986, designating him as the General Manager of the PTA. He assumed office on the same date.

On April 10, 1986, Minister Gonzales sought approval from President Aquino for the composition of the PTA Board of Directors, which included Binamira as Vice-Chairman in his capacity as General Manager. The President approved this on the same date.

Binamira contended that he had discharged his duties as the PTA General Manager and Vice-Chairman of its Board of Directors and had been acknowledged as such by various government offices, including the Office of the President.

However, on January 2, 1990, Binamira's resignation was demanded by respondent Garrucho, the new Secretary of Tourism. This led to an exchange between Binamira and Garrucho, and Binamira filed a complaint against the Secretary with the Commission on Human Rights.

On January 4, 1990, President Aquino issued a memorandum stating that Binamira's designation as General Manager by the Minister of Tourism was invalid because it should have been made by the President as required by P.D. No. 564. In the memorandum, President Aquino designated Garrucho as the concurrent General Manager until a permanent appointee is chosen.

In response to this memorandum, Garrucho took over as General Manager of the PTA. Binamira then filed a petition against Garrucho to question his title. Later, Binamira filed a supplemental petition alleging that the President appointed Jose A. Capistrano as the General Manager of the PTA on April 6, 1990.

The main issue in this case is whether Binamira's designation as General Manager by the Minister of Tourism is valid, or if it should have been done by the President as specified in P.D. No. 564.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner was validly appointed as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority.

  2. Whether or not the designation of the petitioner as General Manager is equivalent to appointment.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner was not validly appointed as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. It is not disputed that the petitioner was only designated by the Minister of Tourism and was not appointed by the President of the Philippines, as required by Section 23-A of P.D. 564.

  2. The designation of the petitioner as General Manager is not equivalent to appointment. Appointment results in security of tenure, while designation merely imposes additional duties on an incumbent official. Appointment is essentially executive in nature, while designation is legislative. In this case, the petitioner was only designated and not appointed, therefore he does not have security of tenure.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appointment involves the selection of an individual to exercise the functions of a given office and results in security of tenure, while designation merely imposes additional duties on an incumbent official.

  • Appointment is essentially executive in nature, while designation is legislative.

  • There is a clear distinction between appointment and designation in terms of the legal effects and implications on security of tenure.