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 letter1 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 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

1 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.

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
22602.
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.3
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 compel anyone to exercise
his discretion absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion.

2 [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.

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

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.