General vs. Roco

Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service is acquired only upon the concurrence of two requisites: (a) CES eligibility, and (b) appointment by the President to the appropriate CES rank. A CES eligible who has not been appointed to a CES rank holds merely a temporary appointment, which may be withdrawn at will, and cannot invoke security of tenure to resist reassignment or replacement.

President Fidel V. Ramos appointed respondent Ramon S. Roco as Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Region V on August 26, 1996, a position equivalent to CES rank level V. Respondent assumed and discharged the duties of the office. He was re-appointed to the same position by President Joseph E. Estrada on February 8, 1999. At the time of both appointments, respondent was not a CES eligible. During his incumbency, however, the Career Executive Service Board conferred CES eligibility upon him on August 13, 1999. Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 1999, President Estrada appointed petitioner Luis Mario M. General — who was not a CES eligible — as Regional Director of the LTO in Region V, the very position occupied by respondent. The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) directed petitioner General to assume the office immediately and respondent Roco to report to the Office of the Secretary “for further instructions.” Petitioner General assumed office on September 16, 1999. Respondent challenged the replacement through a petition for quo warranto in the Court of Appeals.

• The Appointments: Respondent Ramon S. Roco was appointed Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Region V by President Fidel V. Ramos on August 26, 1996, and re-appointed to the identical position by President Joseph E. Estrada on February 8, 1999. The position carried a rank equivalence of CES rank level V. Respondent assumed and performed the duties of the office from the time of his initial appointment. At the time of both the 1996 and 1999 appointments, respondent was not a CES eligible.
• Conferment of Eligibility: During his tenure, the Career Executive Service Board conferred CES eligibility upon respondent on August 13, 1999. No presidential appointment to a CES rank — specifically CES rank level V — was ever issued to him.
• Petitioner General’s Appointment: On September 7, 1999, President Estrada appointed petitioner Luis Mario M. General as Regional Director of the LTO in Region V, the same position held by respondent. Petitioner General was not a CES eligible. DOTC Undersecretary Herminio B. Coloma, Jr., as Officer-in-Charge, issued a Memorandum directing General to assume the office immediately and ordering respondent Roco to report to the Office of the Secretary “for further instructions.” Petitioner General assumed the office on September 16, 1999.
• Legal Framework of the CES: Under the rules and regulations of the CES Board, the conferment of CES eligibility merely entitles the examinee to inclusion in the roster of eligibles. Appointment to a CES rank is a separate act, made by the President upon recommendation of the Board, which completes an official’s membership in the CES and “most importantly, confers on him security of tenure in the CES.” The appropriate rank is determined by level of managerial responsibility and performance. The Integrated Reorganization Plan likewise provides that appointment to appropriate classes in the CES is made by the President from a list of eligibles recommended by the Board, and that the President may, in exceptional cases, appoint a person who is not a CES eligible, subject to the condition that the appointee subsequently passes the CES examination and cannot be promoted until he qualifies.

• Security of Tenure Requires CES Rank Appointment: Petitioners contended that CES eligibility alone does not suffice to vest security of tenure. Unless and until an employee in the Career Executive Service is appointed by the President to the appropriate CES rank, he acquires no security of tenure. Respondent Roco, despite his CES eligibility, never received such an appointment and therefore held a merely temporary position from which he could be validly removed.
• Permissive Appointment of Non-CES Eligible: Petitioners argued that petitioner General’s lack of CES eligibility was of no moment because the Integrated Reorganization Plan expressly allows the President, in exceptional cases, to appoint any person who is not a CES eligible, provided the appointee subsequently takes the required CES examination and is not promoted to a higher class until he qualifies.

• CES Eligibility Alone Sufficient for Security of Tenure: Respondent Roco maintained that CES eligibility is the sole requirement for an employee to acquire security of tenure in the service. He argued that appointment to a CES rank is not necessary for the acquisition of such security of tenure, and that his CES eligibility protected him from arbitrary removal or replacement.

• Security of Tenure in the CES: Whether a CES eligible who has not been appointed by the President to the appropriate CES rank enjoys security of tenure such that his reassignment or replacement violates the constitutional guarantee.
• Validity of General’s Appointment: Whether the appointment of petitioner General — who lacked CES eligibility — to the disputed CES position was valid.

• Security of Tenure in the CES: Two requisites must concur before an employee in the Career Executive Service may attain security of tenure: (a) CES eligibility, and (b) appointment to the appropriate CES rank. The mere conferment of CES eligibility, without a presidential appointment to a CES rank, does not complete membership in the CES and does not confer security of tenure. This conclusion flows from Section 27(1), Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that a permanent appointment requires meeting all requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility “in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereof,” and from the CES rules which expressly state that “appointment to a CES rank … completes the official’s membership in the CES and most importantly, confers on him security of tenure in the CES.” Moreover, the security of tenure of CES officers pertains only to rank, not to the office or position to which they are assigned; they may be transferred or reassigned without loss of rank or diminution of salary. Respondent Roco, though a CES eligible, did not possess the appropriate CES rank level V. Falling short of one of the qualifications completing his membership in the CES, he could not successfully invoke security of tenure, and his appointment was, at best, temporary. Consequently, his reassignment to the Office of the Secretary and the appointment of a replacement did not violate his rights. The ruling in Achacoso v. Macaraig — that a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who meets all the requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility, and that an appointment lacking such a requirement is temporary and may be withdrawn at will — was controlling.
• Validity of General’s Appointment: The absence of CES eligibility in petitioner General was not a legal impediment to his appointment. Part III, Chapter I, Article IV, paragraph 5(c) of the Integrated Reorganization Plan explicitly permits the President, in exceptional cases, to appoint any person who is not a Career Executive Service eligible, provided that the appointee shall subsequently take the required CES examination and that he shall not be promoted to a higher class until he qualifies. Thus, General’s appointment was valid, just as respondent Roco’s own appointment — undertaken when he likewise lacked the required CES rank — had been permissible in a temporary capacity.

• Requisites for Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service — Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service is acquired only upon the concurrence of two elements: (1) CES eligibility, and (2) appointment by the President to the appropriate CES rank. A person who holds a CES position but lacks either requisite holds merely a temporary appointment, which may be withdrawn at will and at a moment’s notice. The conferment of CES eligibility alone does not vest a right to the office.
• Rank-Based Security of Tenure — In the Career Executive Service, security of tenure attaches to rank, not to the office or position. A CES Officer (CESO) may be transferred or reassigned from one position to another without loss of rank, and without diminution of salary even if assigned to a position with a lower salary grade; the CESO is compensated according to his CES rank and not the position occupied.
• Temporary Appointment of Non-CES Eligibles to CES Positions — The President may, in exceptional cases, appoint a person who is not a CES eligible to a CES position. Such an appointment is valid provided the appointee subsequently takes the required CES examination and may not be promoted to a higher class until he qualifies.

• “[T]wo requisites must concur in order that an employee in the career executive service may attain security of tenure, to wit: a) CES eligibility; and b) Appointment to the appropriate CES rank.” — This passage encapsulates the ratio decidendi and is the central rule of the case.
• “[T]he security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and second-level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be appointed.” — The statement clarifies the nature of CES tenure and underpins the validity of reassignments.
• “A person who does not have the requisite qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place or, as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of appropriate eligibles. The appointment extended to him cannot be regarded as permanent even if it may be so designated.” — Quoting Achacoso v. Macaraig, the Court reiterated the principle that an appointment lacking a required qualification is temporary and revocable.

• Achacoso v. Macaraig, 195 SCRA 235 (1991) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the rule that a permanent appointment requires meeting all the qualifications for the position, including the appropriate eligibility, and that an appointment lacking a required eligibility is merely temporary and may be withdrawn at will. It also cited Cuadra v. Cordova, 103 Phil. 391, which Achacoso referenced.

• Section 27(1), Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Provides that a permanent appointment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed in accordance with law and implementing rules. Applied to require that, under the CES rules, eligibility and appointment to CES rank are both necessary before a permanent appointment is attained.
• Part III, Chapter I, Article IV, paragraph 5(c) of the Integrated Reorganization Plan — Authorizes the President, in exceptional cases, to appoint any person who is not a CES eligible, subject to the condition that the appointee subsequently takes the required CES examination and may not be promoted to a higher class until he qualifies. This provision validated the appointment of petitioner General despite his lack of CES eligibility.
• Part III, Chapter I, Article IV, paragraph 5(e) of the Integrated Reorganization Plan — Provides that members of the CES may be reassigned or transferred from one position to another and from one department, bureau or office to another in the interest of public service, without reduction in rank or salary, and that no member shall be reassigned or transferred more often than every two years. This provision reinforced the validity of respondent Roco’s reassignment.

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred.