Both the Pamantasan and Dr.
Esteban filed Motions
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs.
IAC
GR L-65439 NOVEMBER 13, 1985
FACTS: Dr. Esteban has already been a permanent
employee in the government service for twenty-
five (25) years and was officially connected with
the Philippine College of Commerce as its Vice-
President for Academic Affairs when he was invited
in 1973 by Dr. Consuelo Blanco (Blanco), President
of the Pamantasan to be its ad interim temporary
Vice-President for Administration. Dr. Esteban
accepted the offer.
On June 20, 1973, the Board of Regents passed
Board's Resolution No. 485 confirming the ad
interim appointments of several academic and non-
academic personnel of said university among
which was that of Dr. Esteban "effective May 21,
1973. The appointment started in 1973 and was
supposed to be good only for one year but was
extended until 1975. Dr. Esteban received
Notifications of Confirmation of Temporary
Appointment every year to formalize his
assignment.
On July 26, 1975, Dr. Esteban discovered that he
was not included in the list of employees
recommended for permanent appointments. He
requested Dr. Blanco that his appointment be
converted into a permanent one. It was denied.
On August 7, 1975, Dr. Blanco terminated Dr.
Esteban's appointment as Vice-President for
Administration effective July 31, 1975. His
appointment effective until June 30, 1976 was also
withdrawn. In lieu thereof, he was appointed as
Professor III and Director of the Institute of
Continuing Education and Community Service.
Dr. Esteban appealed to the Commission for the
protection of his tenure in the Pamantasan. The
Commission ruled that his appointment was
temporary in nature. However, upon Dr. Estebans
Motion for Reconsideration, the Commission ruled
in favor of him stating that he was fully qualified
for the position of Vice-President for Administration
and certified him "for appointment therein under
permanent status.
The Pamantasan asked for the reconsideration of
the ruling. The Commission came out with a
statement which confused more than it clarified. It
stated that its certification should not be
interpreted as directing the reinstatement of Dr.
Esteban because it was never intended to be so.
On July 6, 1977, the Commission again modified its
earlier resolution. It ruled that Dr. Blanco, had no
authority to extend to Dr. Esteban an ad interim
appointment as Vice President for Administration
as only the Board of Regents was empowered to do
that under Article 55 of the University Charter.
However, it ruled that, as a de facto officer, he was
entitled to be paid the salary of that position.
for Reconsideration. The Merits System Board
(created by PD 1409) in the Civil Service
Commission required the Pamantasan to submit its
complete records on the appointment and
termination of Dr. Esteban as Vice-President for
Administration.
The Pamantasan submitted copies of the notices
sent to Dr. Esteban regarding his appointment as
Vice-President for Administration, but not a copy of
the Board's Resolution No. 485. A few months later,
the Pamantasan reiterated that "we cannot find
any document showing that Dr. Esteban was
appointed ... in a permanent capacity.
In view of the Pamantasan's failure to produce the
minutes of the regular Board of Regents meeting
on June 20, 1973 when Esteban's appointment was
approved, the Commission concluded that there is
truth to the claim of Dr. Esteban that his
appointment as Vice-President for Administration of
the Pamantasan was approved as permanent and
that the temporary appointment issued to him did
not alter his permanent status as he had already
acquired a vested right as well as the right to
security of tenure.
The Pamantasan filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and submitted for the first time a copy of
Resolution No. 485. The Commission denied the
motion and chided the Pamantasan for having
suppressed said piece of evidence.
The Pamantasan filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of First Instance of Manila. CFI ruled in
favor of the Pamantasan. The Intermediate
Appellate Court, however, reversed the ruling and
upheld that Dr. Estebans appointment was
permanent.
ISSUE: WON Dr. Esteban held the position (Vice-
President for Administration of PLM) in a permanent
capacity as to guarantee his security of tenure
HELD: Yes. In the usual sense, an officer ad interim
is one appointed to fill a vacancy, or to discharge
the duties of the office during the absence or
temporary incapacity of its regular incumbent. But
such is not the meaning nor the use intended in
the context of Philippine law. In referring to Dr.
Esteban's appointments, the term is not descriptive
of the nature of the appointments given to him.
Rather, it is used to denote the manner in which
said appointments were made, that is, done by the
President of the Pamantasan in the meantime,
while the Board of Regents, which is originally
vested by the University Charter with the power of
appointment, is unable to act.
Note, however, that an ad interim appointment
must be distinguished from an acting
appointment which is merely temporary, good until
another permanent appointment is issued.
Not only is the appointment in question an ad
interim appointment, but the same is also a
confirmed ad interim appointment. In its Resolution
No. 485, dated June 20, 1973, the Pamantasan
Board of Regents verified respondent Esteban's
appointment without condition nor limitation as to
tenure. As of that moment, it became a regular and
permanent appointment.
The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary.
It is a prerogative of the appointing power that may
be availed of without liability, provided however,
that it is exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employer's interest and not for
the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or
under valid agreements, and provided further, that
such prerogatives are not exercised in a malicious,
harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner, or
out of malice or spite. The general rule is that the
power of appointment must remain unhampered
by judicial intervention. However, when the law is
violated or when there is grave abuse of discretion,
we have to step in.
SARMIENTO vs. MISON
GR 79974 DECEMBER 17, 1987
FACTS: In this case Salvador Mison was appointed
as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by
then President. Such appointment made by the
President is being questioned by petitioner Ulpiano
Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla who are both
taxpayers, members of the bar, and both
Constitutional law professors, stating that the said
appointment is not valid because the appointment
was not submitted to the Commission On
Appointment for confirmation.
ISSUE: WON such appointment made by the
President without the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointment was valid
HELD: Yes. Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987
Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers whom
the President shall appoint:
1. Heads of the Executive Departments,
Ambassadors, other public minister or consuls,
Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of
Colonel or Naval Captain, and Other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in him in this
Constitution;
2. All other Officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided by law;
3. Those whom the President may be authorized by
law to appoint; and
4. Officers lower in rank whose appointments the
Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
Only those enumerated in number one requires
confirmation of the Commission of Appointment. It
is evident that the position of Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs (a bureau head) is not one of
those within the first group of appointments where
the consent of the Commission on Appointments is
required. As a matter of fact, as already pointed
out, while the 1935 Constitution includes "heads of
bureaus" among those officers whose
appointments need the consent of the Commission
on Appointments, the 1987 Constitution on the
other hand, deliberately excluded the position of
"heads of bureaus" from appointments that need
the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on
Appointments. The President of the Philippines
acted within her constitutional authority and power
in appointing respondent Salvador Mison,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, without
submitting his nomination to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation.