PLM v.
IAC o Jun 26, 1975: NRTA with a salary of P21,760 per annum, 'effective July 1, 1975 until Jun. 30,
November 13, 1985 | Guttierez, JR., J. |
Digester: Chan, Ysabelle
SUMMARY: In 1973, Dr. Hernani Esteban was appointed by Dr. Consuelo Blanco as
the Vice-President for Administration in the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
(PLM). Esteban’s appointment was ad interim in nature (because at that time the PLM
Board of Regents was not in session). His appointment was extended in 1975. However,
he later discovered that his name was not included among those recommended for
permanent appointment. He then requested Blanco to make him a permanent
appointee. Blanco, however, appointed Esteban as Professor III instead and his
appointment as VP for Admin was terminated. Esteban brought the case before the
Civil Service Commission where he got a favorable judgment. The trial court reversed
the CSC. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court.
DOCTRINE: …an ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance of paragraph (4),
section 10, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides that the President shall have
the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.’ It is an appointment
permanent in nature, and the circumstance that it is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. An ad interim
appointment is disapproved certainly for a reason other than that its provisional period
has expired. Said appointment is of course distinguishable from an ‘acting’ appointment
which is merely temporary, good until another permanent appointment is issued.
FACTS:
 Prior to serving as the VP for Administration of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM), Dr. Esteban had been a permanent employee in the government
service for 25 years. Until May 20, 1973, he was officially connected with the
Philippine College of Commerce, a state-owned educational institution as its VP for
Academic Affairs. Shortly before that, the Board of Trustees of the College, to
streamline the college organization, resolved to abolish such position. He was given
the option to continue teaching at the Philippine College of Commerce which he
accepted until his transfer to the PLM ng Lungsod ng Maynila, upon the invitation
of its president, Dr. Blanco.
 At PLM, Dr. Esteban was initially extended an ad interim temporary appointment
as VP for Administration by Blanco. He received from the Secretary of PLM a
'Notification of Confirmation of Temporary Appointment' dated June 28, 1973.
His appointment was 'effective May 21, 1973 until June 30, 1974, unless sooner
terminated.' He was given by the PLM Secretary several ‘Notifications of Renewal
of Temporary Appointment’ (NRTA) thereafter, on the following dates:
o Jul 5, 1974: NRTA renewing him 'effective Jul 1, 1974 until Aug 31, 1974.'
o Aug 30, 1974: NRTA, indicating that the Board of Regents, on recommendation of the University
President renewing him 'effective Sept 1, 1974 until Jun 30, 1975' with an increased salary of
P17,160 per annum.
o Oct 15, 1974: his salary was increased to P17,600
1976.'
 Esteban discovered that he was not included in the list of employees recommended
for permanent appointments. He wrote to Blanco requesting the conversion of his
temporary appointment to a permanent one, considering his 2½ years service.
Blanco replied with various reasons for her not acting favorably on his request.
 Aug 1, 1975: Esteban received a 'Notification of Ad Interim Appointment’
notifying him that the University President had approved his appointment as
Professor III with a salary of P15,600 per annum 'effective August 1, 1975'. He was
further designated as Director of the Institute of Continuing Education and
Community Service with an honorarium of P5,676 per annum, likewise effective
August 1, 1975.
 Aug. 7, 1975: Blanco issued a memo circular terminating Esteban's appointment as
VP for Administration effective July 31, 1975. His appointment dated June 26,
1975 and effective until June 30, 1976 had been withdrawn before it could be
confirmed by the PLM Board of Regents.
 On the same date, Esteban appealed to the CSC for the protection of his tenure in
the PLM.
 |CSC| the temporary nature of the appointment issued to Esteban as VP for
Administration is conceded. Therefore, his services may be terminated at any time
with or without request that he be extended permanent appointment ,or that his
temporary appointment be converted into permanent one, it may be stated that the
issuance of such appointment is addressed to the sound discretion of the
appointing official.
 On MR, |CSC| ruled in favor of Esteban and certified him for appointment under
permanent status, seeing that he was fully qualified (in view of his extensive
experience in the fields of public administration and management) for the position
of VP for Administration.
 When the PLM asked for a reconsideration, the |CSC| came out with a resolution
which confused more than it clarified. It stated that its certification should not be
interpreted as directing the reinstatement of Esteban because 'it was never intended
to be so’
 Esteban asked CSC to reconsider the resolution and also asked for the payment of
the salaries and allowances due him as of September 1975, which the PLM had
withheld. CSC denied.
 Esteban reiterated his request for payment of his salaries. This was referred by the
CSC to the PLM treasurer. He also asked for a review of the PLM 's decision to
terminate.
 CSC again modified its resolution and ruled that Blanco had no authority to extend
Esteban an ad interim appointment as only the Board of Regents was empowered
to do that under Article 55 of the University Charter (RA 4196). However, as a de
facto officer, Esteban was entitled to be paid the salary of that position.
 MRs were filed by both parties.
 Subsequently, PD No. 1409 was issued creating a Merits System Board in the CSC
to hear and decide cases brought before it on appeal by officers and employees
who feel aggrieved by the determination of officials on personnel matters.
 The Board required PLM to submit its complete records on the appointment and
termination of Esteban as VP for administration.
 While the records officer of PLM submitted copies of the NRTAs, he did not
submit a copy of the Board's Resolution No. 485 passed June 20, 1973 confirming
the ad interim appointments of several academic and non-academic personnel of
said university among which was that of Esteban. He produced a copy of the
memorandum circular terminating Esteban's service.
 The Commissioner directed PLM to submit any document directly or actually
showing that Esteban was appointed VP for administration of the PLM in a
permanent capacity.
 The PLM by 2nd Indorsement, despite the existence of Board Resolution No. 485,
replied that "we cannot find any document showing that Dr. Esteban was
appointed ... in a permanent capacity.”
 |CSC| In view of PLM 's failure to produce the minutes of the regular Board of
Regents meeting when Esteban's appointment was approved, there is truth to the
claim of Esteban that his appointment was approved as permanent.
o Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Martinez: that when a party has it in his possession or power to
produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and withholds it, the fair
presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its production
would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose.
o Esteban had been appointed with permanent status; 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', that he cannot unceremoniously removed therefrom, nor can the status of his
appointment be changed without cause, as provided by law and after due process." The
termination of his services was illegal.
 PLM filed an MR and also submitted a copy of Resolution No. 485.
 CSC chided the PLM for having suppressed said piece of evidence from which "the
intention of, or the accurate action taken by PLM Board of Regents on Dr.
Esteban's appointment in question, may be determined." CSC denied PLM’s MR.
 PLM filed a petition for certiorari with the CFI.
 |CFI| reversed CSC, holding that Esteban's appointment was invalid, though he
may be considered as a de facto VP up to October 9, 1975, the date when the
Commission ruled that his appointment was temporary and could be terminated at
any time.
 |IAC| reversed CFI, declaring as permanent the appointment of Esteban and
ordering his immediate reinstatement to that position with back salaries, allowances
and other benefits.
RULING: Petition dismissed
Whether Esteban holds the position in a permanent capacity as to guarantee
security of tenure – YES
 It is easy to see why the petitioner should experience difficulty in understanding the
situation. Esteban had been extended several "ad-interim" appointments which
petitioner mistakenly understands as appointments temporary in nature. Perhaps, it
is the literal translation of the word "ad interim" which creates such belief. The
term is defined by Black to mean "in the meantime" or for the time being, Thus, 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 PLM 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.
 Summers v. Ozaeta: ... an ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance of
paragraph (4), section 10, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides that the
President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.' lt is
an appointment permanent in nature, and the circumstance that it is subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent
character. An ad interim appointment is disapproved certainly for a reason other
than that its provisional period has expired. Said appointment is of course
distinguishable 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, the PLM
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.
 In other words, if the Board of Regents is in session, the PLM President merely
nominates while the Board issues the appointment. But when the Board is not in
session, the President is authorized to issue ad interim appointments. Such
appointments are permanent but their terms are only until the Board disapproves
them. If confirmed, the appointee's term is converted into the regular term inherent
in the position.
Petitioner: all notices of appointments, renewals, and confirmation thereof all declare
the same to be temporary, carrying fixed commencement and termination dates, "unless
sooner terminated."
 As expressed by IAC, “this stubborn insistence deliberately ignores Resolution No.
485 of the Board of Regents.". "In case of conflict between a notification issued by
the Secretary of the University which is supposed to reflect the true content of a
Board Resolution and the Resolution itself of said Board of Regents of said
University, the latter is controlling for obvious reasons. The Secretary of the
University has no authority to alter or add something which is not provided for in
the Resolution of the Board of Regents ...".
 There is nothing in the Resolution No. 485 which suggests that the appointment
was temporary. The Board's action was to confirm or reject an existing ad interim
 appointment. If respondent's appointment was intended to be temporary, it should whatever capacity, whether teaching, research or administration. As of backwages,
have been expressly stated. It cannot be made to rest on inconclusive evidence, the amount is generally based on the equivalent of three years' earnings
specially because a temporary appointment divests the temporary appointee of the  In line with the policy adopted by this Court to do away with the attendant delay in
constitutional security of tenure against removal without cause even if he is a civil awarding backwages because of the extended hearings necessary to prove the
service eligible. earnings, elsewhere of each and every employee, the formula for computing the
 Further supporting private respondent's stand is the list of permanent personnel same calls for fixing the award of backwages to three years. However, in Dy Keh
which was submitted to the Commission by the university president herself on Beng v. International Labor and Marine Union, we held the amount of backwages
March 3, 1975 for recognition of their permanent status by the Commission. The to be "subject to deduction where there are mitigating circumstances in favor of the
appellant's name was the first in that list. The permanent status by the CSC in its employer, but subject to increase whree there are aggravating circumstances.
1st Indorsement. This fact is borne out by the records  Considering that in the case at bar, more than 10 years have elapsed from the date
 From the foregoing, there appears an intention to deprive private respondent of his respondent Esteban as to the true nature of his appointment and "studiously
rights as a permanent appointee. With strained relations and differences in suppressing" material data to effectively deprive the latter of his rights as a
professional opinion between the private respondent and the PLM President, Dr. permanent employee, we find an award of 5 years backpay to respondent Dr.
Esteban was led to believe that his services were terminable at pleasure. Esteban just and equitable under the circumstances, assuming he has not reached
 The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointing power has the retirement age in the meantime.
right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for
himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications
and eligibilities. 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. Otherwise the situation aptly described by
newspaperman Jesus Bigornia would exist as he had written:
o ... With the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of faculty members, the university has
spawned a meek, spineless, even subservient corps of professors and instructors.
 We cannot also sanction the termination of private respondent's services by
petitioner. With his appointment now settled as permanent., the Civil Service law
and the Constitution guarantee private respondent's security of tenure as 'No
officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for
cause as provided by law" (Section 3, Article XII, the 1973 Philippine Constitution).
 Petitioner has failed to substantiate its allegations of incompetence against
respondent Esteban whose record of government service appears quite impressive.
Esteban was not dismissed for cause after proper proceedings. His appointment
was terminated on the ground that it was temporary.

Whether Esteban is entitled to full backwages, allowances and other benefits -

 IAC ordered the payment of full back salaries to Dr. Esteban provided he has not
reached the age of compulsory retirement from the government service.
 It is not clear from the records as to when Dr. Esteban actually ceased working for
PLM. Under the law, he is entitled to full pay, allowances, and other benefits during
the period that he was actually reporting for work and rendering services in