ACHACOSO v.

MACARAIG
G.R. No. 93023
March 13 1991
Cruz
Tomas
D.
Achacoso
petitioners
responden Catalino Macaraig (Executive Secretary) and Ruben Torres (Secretary of DoLE) Jose
ts Sarmiento

summary Summary of facts and ratio. Doctrine. Relationship to syllabus topic.

facts of the case

-

Tomas was appointed Administrator of the POEA on October 16 1987. He assumed office
on October 27 1987. On January 2 1990, the President addressed a request to all Dept
Heads, USecs, Assistans Secretaries, Bureau Heads and other government officials to file
a courtesy resignation. Tomas followed
On April 10 1990, Sec of Labor requested Tomas to turn over his office to the Deputy
Administrator as the officer-in-charge. He protested his replacement and declared he was
not surrendering his office because his resignation was not voluntary but filed only in
obedience to the Presidents directive.
April 19, 1990, he was informed that Jose Sarmiento was appointed Admin of the POEA.
Again, Tomas was asked to vacate the position. Hence this petition
According to Tomas:
o Member of the Career Service of the Civil Service and thus enjoys security of tenure
(one aspect which differentiates it from the non-career service). He argues that he
has the rank of undersecretary, thus coming under Article IV Section 5 of the Civil
Service Decree
Positions in the Career Executive Service: Usec, Assistant Sec, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director (RD), Assistant RD,
Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as
determined by the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed
by the President.
o In view of the security of tenure enjoyed by the ones above, it was thus beyond the
prerogatives of the President to make them resign. If any, the resignation was made
out of duress since the President can fire them anytime.
According to the OSG:
o Although the office of POEA Admin is a career executive service, Tomas himself is
not a cereer executive service official entitled to security of tenure. As proof, the
OSG offered a certification from the CSC saying that he is not a Career Executive
Service (CES) eligible for failure to participate in a Career Executive Service
Development Program
o In connection to his failure to be eligible, Part III Article IV of the Integrated
Reorganization Plan on the career executive service provides that the President
shall be made from a list of CES eligible provided by the board. In execptional cases
however, the President may appoint someone not in the list provided that such
appointee shall subsequently take the required CES Examination and that he shall
not be promoted to a higher class until he passes

issue
Was Tomas entitled to security of tenure? NO

Ratio
1

What happens when a person who lacks all the qualifications is appointed= temporary to be
terminated at the whim of the appointing authority
- It is settled that a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who meets all
the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate
eligibility prescribed. Since Achacoso did not meet all the requirements, he can only be
given a temporary appointment, which could be withdrawn by the appointing authority at
will and at a moments notice
- The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not
automatically confer security of tenure on its occupant even if he does not
possess the required qualifications. A person who does not have the requisite
qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place. At best, its only a
temporary appointment
- The purpose of an acting appointment is only to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of
official functions by authorizing a person to discharge the same pending the
selection of a permanent or another appointee.
- Thus the acting appointee is distinguished from other means of terminating official
relations. This is called the Expiration of the Term. An acting appointees term is
understood to be without any fixity and enduring at the pleasure of the appointing
authority.
o When required to relinquish his office, he cannot complain about security
of tenure shit because removal imports the separation of the incumbent
BEFORE the expiration of the term. Here, once the appointing authority
says hes done, then thats the expiration of the term, does not violating
the rule on security of tenure
Was Tomas appointment permanent?
- Tomas argues that it was intended to be permanent because temporary assignments are
not supposed to exceed 12 months. He served for 3 years
- SC didnt agree with Tomas. Even if an intention like that was conceived, just an intention
would not make his appointment permanent. Such an appointment would not confer on
Tomas the appropriate civil service eligibility he did not possess at the time he was
appointed, nor did it vest him with the right to security of tenure available to permanents