FELIX VS.

BUENASEDA
G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995
FACTS:
This is a petition assailing the petitioners dismissal as Medical Specialist I of the National
Center for Mental Health as illegal and violative of the constitutional provision on security
of tenure. Petitioner joined the NCMH as a Resident Physician in June1979. Shortly, he was
promoted as Senior Resident Physician until the Ministry of Health reorganized the NCMH
pursuant toE.O. 119. Under the reorganization, he was appointed to the position of Senior
Resident Physician in a temporary capacity. On August 1988, he was elevated to the position of
Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status) which was renewed the following year. The Dept. of
Health issued Department Order No. 347 which required board certification as prerequisite for
renewal of specialist positions in various medical centers and it also extend appointments of
Medical Specialist positions in cases where the termination of medical specialist who failed to
meet the requirements for board certification. On August 20, 1991, after reviewing petitioner's
service record, non-renewal of petitioners appointment as Medical Specialist I was
recommended. He was, however, allowed to continue in the service, and receive his salary,
allowances and other benefits even after being informed of the termination of his appointment.
Soon, he was advised by the hospital authorities to vacate his cottage. The petitioner filed a
petition with the Merit System Protection Board alleging harassment by respondents; however, it
was later dismissed for lack of merit. Said decision was appealed to the Civil Service
Commission which dismissed the same including the Motion for Reconsideration the petitioner
has filed after which brought this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed from his position and that it is not a
violative of his constitutional right of security of tenure.
RULING:
NO. The petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The Solicitor General is correct in contending
that the petitioners temporary appointment after the reorganization were valid and did not
violate his constitutional right of security of tenure. Petitioner is guilty of estoppels or laches.
Stringent standards and requirements for renewal of specialist-rank positions or for promotion to
the next post-graduate residency year are necessary because lives are ultimately at stake.
Petitioners insistence on being reverted back to the status quo prior to the reorganizations would
therefore be akin to a college student asking to be sent to high school and staying there. He is
estopped from insisting upon a right or claim which he had plainly abandoned when he, from all
indications, enthusiastically accepted the promotion. It bears emphasis that at the time of
petitioner's promotion to the position of Medical Specialist I (temporary) in August of 1988, no
objection was raised by him about the change of position or the temporary nature of designation.
The failure to assert a claim or the voluntary acceptance of another position in government,
obviously without reservation, leads to a presumption that the civil servant has either given up
his claim of has already settled into the new position. Finally, it is crystal clear, from the facts of

the case at bench, that the petitioner accepted a temporary appointment (Medical Specialist I). As
respondent Civil Service Commission has correctly pointed out, the appointment was for a
definite and renewable period which, when it was not renewed, did not involve a dismissal but an
expiration of the petitioner's term.