De Castro vs. Carlos

A person appointed to a Career Executive Service position who lacks the requisite CES eligibility holds only a temporary appointment and enjoys no security of tenure; his employment may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and he cannot maintain a quo warranto action to oust a subsequent appointee. The position of Assistant General Manager for Operations of the MMDA is a CES position because it is a career position above division chief level that requires the performance of executive and managerial functions.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed petitioner Emmanuel A. de Castro as Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) on 29 July 2009. The appointment was concurred in by the Metro Manila Council, and petitioner assumed office. Following the change in administration, on 29 July 2010, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2, which allowed non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESOs) occupying CES positions to remain in office temporarily until 31 October 2010 or until replaced. Shortly thereafter, the MMDA Chairperson reassigned petitioner, designated another officer-in-charge for the AGMO office, and subsequently designated respondent Emerson S. Carlos as OIC. Petitioner’s name was removed from the payroll, and his salary was stopped. Petitioner sought a clarification from the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), which initially opined that the AGMO position was not yet classified as CES and that petitioner was not covered by the OP Memoranda. Despite petitioner’s demands for reinstatement, on 4 January 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III appointed respondent as the new AGMO, prompting petitioner to file a petition for quo warranto directly with the Supreme Court.

• Appointment of Petitioner: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Emmanuel A. de Castro as AGMO of the MMDA on 29 July 2009. The appointment was concurred in by the Metro Manila Council through MMDA Resolution No. 09-10, Series of 2009. Petitioner took his oath of office on 17 August 2009 before then MMDA Chairperson Bayani F. Fernando.

• Reassignment and OIC Designation: Following the change in administration, on 30 July 2010, MMDA Chairperson Francis N. Tolentino issued Office Order No. 106 designating Corazon B. Cruz as officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Office of the AGMO. Petitioner was reassigned to the Legal and Legislative Affairs Office; his service vehicle and office space were withdrawn. On 2 November 2010, Chairperson Tolentino designated respondent Emerson S. Carlos as OIC of the Office of the AGMO via Memorandum Order No. 24, citing OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 as basis. Petitioner’s name was stricken from the MMDA payroll, and his salary was discontinued beginning November 2010.

• Clarification from CESB: Petitioner wrote to the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) requesting clarification on the classification of the AGMO position. In a letter dated 12 November 2010, CESB Executive Director Maria Anthonette Allones stated that the AGMO position had not yet been classified and could not be considered as belonging to the Career Executive Service (CES). She opined that petitioner was not holding a coterminous position and was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.

• Demand and Non-payment: Petitioner was later offered the position of Director IV of the MMDA Public Health and Safety Services or an MMDA consultancy, which he declined as a demotion. He sent letters demanding payment of his salary and reinstatement to the payroll, but received no action. On 17 December 2010, he made a formal demand for reinstatement as AGMO through a letter to the Office of the President.

• Appointment of Respondent: On 4 January 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III appointed respondent Emerson S. Carlos as the new AGMO of the MMDA. Respondent took his oath on 10 January 2011.

• Filing of Petition and Procedural Events: Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Quo Warranto directly with the Supreme Court. The OSG filed a Comment on behalf of respondent. On petitioner’s motion, the OSG was disqualified; a private law firm entered its appearance and adopted the OSG’s Comment. Petitioner filed his Reply.

• Security of Tenure and Coverage of OP Memoranda: Petitioner argued that Section 2(3), Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution guarantees security of tenure for civil service employees. He maintained that his appointment as AGMO was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 because, as confirmed by the CESB, the AGMO position is not a CES position.

• Direct Recourse to the Supreme Court: Petitioner submitted that direct recourse to the Supreme Court was warranted by urgent demands of public interest, particularly the need for stability in the civil service and protection of the rights of civil servants. He also expressed doubt that a lower court judge or appellate justice would be willing to rule against a presidential appointment.

• Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Salaries: Petitioner claimed entitlement to the AGMO position and demanded payment of salaries and financial benefits received by respondent during his allegedly illegal tenure.

• AGMO as a CES Position: Respondent countered that the AGMO position belongs to the Career Executive Service because its functions are executive and managerial. As petitioner is a non-CESO occupying a CES position, he is covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2 and could be validly replaced.

• Hierarchy of Courts: Respondent raised the procedural infirmity of petitioner’s direct filing with the Supreme Court, arguing that petitioner failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

• Hierarchy of Courts: Whether the petition should be dismissed for petitioner’s direct resort to the Supreme Court in violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

• Coverage of the AGMO Position under the CES: Whether the position of Assistant General Manager for Operations of the MMDA is a Career Executive Service (CES) position.

• Petitioner’s Right to the Office and Validity of Respondent’s Appointment: Whether respondent was validly appointed and whether petitioner is entitled to hold the position of AGMO.

• Liability for Salaries: Whether respondent should pay petitioner the salaries and financial benefits received during his tenure as AGMO.

• Hierarchy of Courts: The petition was dismissed for disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and the regional trial court, and direct recourse is permitted only upon clearly and specifically stated special and important reasons. Petitioner’s justifications — stability in the civil service and speculation that lower courts might be reluctant to rule against a presidential appointment — were insufficient to warrant disregard of the hierarchy.

• Coverage of the AGMO Position under the CES: The AGMO position falls within the coverage of the Career Executive Service. Applying CESB Resolution No. 799, the position satisfies the three criteria: (i) it is a career position by virtue of the MMDA Charter, which expressly grants security of tenure; (ii) it is above division chief level, being equivalent to the rank of assistant secretary with Salary Grade 29; and (iii) its duties and responsibilities — planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and overseeing metro-wide basic services — require the performance of executive and managerial functions. The CESB’s informal opinion to the contrary could not override existing CESB and CSC resolutions.

• Petitioner’s Right to the Office and Validity of Respondent’s Appointment: Petitioner’s appointment was merely temporary. A permanent appointment in the CES requires Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE), which petitioner undisputedly lacked. Pursuant to Amores v. Civil Service Commission, a non-CES eligible appointee holds only a temporary appointment and acquires no security of tenure; the appointment may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Because petitioner failed to show a clear right to the office — the indispensable requirement in a quo warranto suit — the validity of respondent’s appointment or eligibility was immaterial. Even assuming the position had not yet been formally classified as CES, under CESB Resolution No. 945, appointments to unclassified positions are deemed coterminous with the appointing authority, and petitioner’s term ended with President Arroyo’s administration.

• Liability for Salaries: The claim for salaries necessarily failed in light of petitioner’s lack of entitlement to the office.

• **Hierarchy of Courts ** — The Supreme Court is a court of last resort; its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus is concurrent with lower courts. Direct recourse is allowed only for special and important reasons clearly and specifically set forth in the petition, to prevent inordinate demands on the Court’s time and further overcrowding of its docket.

• **Career vs. Non-Career Service ** — Career service is characterized by security of tenure, while non-career service is coterminous with the appointing authority or limited to a specified period. The AGMO position is a career position because R.A. 7924 expressly provides that AGMs “enjoy security of tenure and may be removed for cause in accordance with law.”

• **CES Coverage (Two-Element Test) ** — Under Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals and PCSO, a position is covered by the CES if: (1) it is among those enumerated in Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987, or a position of equal rank identified by the CESB; and (2) the holder is a presidential appointee. Resolution No. 799 further clarifies that positions above division chief level in career service requiring executive/managerial functions are CES positions.

• **Temporary Appointments in the CES ** — A non-CES eligible appointed to a CES position holds only a temporary appointment. Security of tenure in the CES takes effect only upon passing the CES examinations and conferment of eligibility. The appointee may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority without need to show cause.

• **Clear Right Requirement in Quo Warranto ** — In a quo warranto proceeding filed by a private individual, the petitioner must prove a clear right to the contested office. Absent such showing, the respondent’s lack of qualification or eligibility is immaterial, and the respondent is entitled to undisturbed possession of the office.

• **Unclassified Positions Deemed Coterminous ** — Under CESB Resolution No. 945, all appointments to positions that have not been previously classified as part of the CES are deemed coterminous with the appointing authority.

• “The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.” — Quoting Vergara Sr. v. Suelto, this passage restates the rationale for strict observance of the hierarchy of courts.

• “A permanent appointment in the civil service is issued to a person who has met the requirements of the position to which the appointment is made in accordance with law and the rules issued pursuant thereto.” — From Amores v. Civil Service Commission, this anchors the distinction between permanent and temporary appointments.

• “Security of tenure in the career executive service, which presupposes a permanent appointment, takes place upon passing the CES examinations administered by the CES Board.” — Emphasizing that CES eligibility is the indispensable condition for a permanent appointment in the CES.

• “In a quo warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial.” — Summarizing the burden of proof in a private individual’s quo warranto action.

• Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals and PCSO , G.R. Nos. 185766 & 185767, 23 November 2010 — Clarified the two-element test for CES coverage and was the controlling precedent for determining whether the AGMO position falls within the CES.

• Amores v. Civil Service Commission , G.R. No. 170093, 29 April 2009 — Instructive on the nature of temporary appointments in the CES; held that a non-CES eligible cannot hold a CES position in a permanent capacity.

• Carillo v. CA , 167 Phil. 527 (1977) — Ruled that one who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure and may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power without need to show cause.

• Mendoza v. Allas , 362 Phil. 238 (1999) — Defined the nature and requisites of a petition for quo warranto, particularly the petitioner’s burden to prove entitlement to the office.

• Capalla v. COMELEC , G.R. Nos. 201112 et al., 13 June 2012 — Reiterated the concurrent nature of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and the necessity of observing the hierarchy of courts.

• Ong v. Office of the President , G.R. No. 184219, 30 January 2012 — Applied the principle that appointments in the CES can be deemed coterminous with the appointing authority.

• CSC v. Darangina , 542 Phil. 635 (2007) — Held that in a quo warranto proceeding, the petitioner’s failure to prove a clear right renders the respondent’s qualifications immaterial.

• **Section 2(3), Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution ** — Guarantees the right to security of tenure of employees in the civil service. Invoked by petitioner but deemed inapplicable because he held only a temporary appointment.

• **Section 4, Republic Act No. 7924 (MMDA Charter) ** — Creates the positions of General Manager and Assistant General Managers, provides that they shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Metro Manila Council, and expressly states that they “shall enjoy security of tenure and may be removed for cause in accordance with law.” This provision was pivotal in classifying the AGMO position as a career position.

• **Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2 ** —

• Section 6: Classifies positions in the civil service into career and non-career.
• Section 7: Enumerates positions included in the career service, including those in the Career Executive Service (third level).
• Section 8: Groups career service positions into three levels; the third level covers the CES.

• Section 9: Defines non-career service as coterminous with the appointing authority or limited to a specified period.

• **CESB Resolution No. 799 (19 May 2009) ** — Classifies positions embraced within the CES, prescribing the criteria: (i) career position, (ii) above division chief level, and (iii) duties requiring executive and managerial functions. Applied to determine that the AGMO position is a CES position.

• **CESB Resolution No. 945 (14 June 2011) ** — Provides that appointments to positions not yet classified as CES are deemed coterminous with the appointing authority. Cited as an alternative basis for the temporary nature of petitioner’s appointment.

• **OP Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 2010 ** — Extended the holdover period for non-CESOs occupying CES positions until 31 October 2010 or until their replacements were appointed. The validity of petitioner’s replacement was analyzed under this circular.

Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Mario Victor F. Leonen.