Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court

The Court held that an ad interim appointment issued by a university president, when confirmed by the Board of Regents without any limitation as to tenure, becomes a regular and permanent appointment. Such an appointment is protected by the constitutional security of tenure, and the appointee cannot be dismissed except for cause and after due process.

Dr. Hernani P. Esteban, a former permanent government employee, was invited to join PLM. The University President, Dr. Consuelo Blanco, issued him a series of ad interim appointments as Vice-President for Administration. The PLM Board of Regents later confirmed these appointments. Despite this, the university administration issued notices describing the appointments as "temporary" and ultimately terminated Esteban's services. Esteban appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which, after a protracted administrative process, ruled his appointment was permanent. The PLM challenged this ruling via a petition for certiorari.

• Dr. Hernani P. Esteban had 25 years of prior permanent government service.
• He was invited to PLM by its President, Dr. Consuelo Blanco, and was issued a series of ad interim appointments as Vice-President for Administration starting May 21, 1973.
• The PLM Board of Regents, in Resolution No. 485 dated June 20, 1973, confirmed these appointments without condition or limitation as to tenure.
• Despite the Board's confirmation, the University Secretary sent Esteban notifications labeling his appointments as "temporary" with fixed terms.
• On August 7, 1975, Dr. Blanco terminated Esteban's appointment effective July 31, 1975.
• During CSC proceedings, PLM failed to produce Board Resolution No. 485 when initially ordered, leading the CSC to infer the appointment was permanent.
• PLM later produced the resolution but maintained the appointment was temporary.

• PLM argued that all appointment notifications issued to Esteban explicitly stated they were "temporary" with fixed commencement and termination dates.
• It contended that the term "ad interim" signifies a temporary, not permanent, appointment.
• PLM asserted that the power to appoint is discretionary and that Esteban's services could be terminated at any time.

• Esteban argued that his ad interim appointments, once confirmed by the Board of Regents, became permanent.
• He contended that the misleading "temporary" notifications from the University Secretary could not override the controlling Board Resolution.
• The CSC supported the view that the confirmed appointment vested Esteban with security of tenure.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Dr. Esteban's ad interim appointment as Vice-President for Administration was permanent or temporary in nature.
  • Whether his termination without cause violated his security of tenure.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that an ad interim appointment is permanent in nature, distinguished from a merely temporary "acting" appointment. When such an appointment is confirmed by the Board of Regents without conditions, it becomes a regular permanent appointment.
  • The Court found that the "temporary" notifications issued by the University Secretary were misleading and could not alter the permanent character of the appointment as established by the Board Resolution.
  • Because Esteban held a permanent appointment, his termination without cause after due process was illegal. The Court affirmed his right to reinstatement and modified the award of back salaries to five years, considering the employer's bad faith in suppressing evidence.

• Ad Interim Appointment Doctrine — An ad interim appointment is one made by an authority (like a university president) when the confirming body (the Board of Regents) is not in session. It is permanent in nature, and its confirmation by the Board converts it into a regular appointment with the full security of tenure. The Court applied this doctrine to reject PLM's claim that the appointments were merely temporary.
• Best Evidence Rule / Adverse Inference — When a party has in its possession or power the best evidence relevant to a case and withholds it, the presumption is that the evidence is withheld for a sinister motive and that its production would be unfavorable to that party. The Court applied this to affirm the CSC's finding that PLM's suppression of Board Resolution No. 485 supported Esteban's claim of a permanent appointment.

• "An ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance of paragraph (4), section 10, Article VII of the Constitution... It is an appointment permanent in nature, and the circumstance that it is subject to confirmation... does not alter its permanent character." — This passage clarifies the legal meaning of "ad interim" in Philippine law, distinguishing it from a temporary appointment.
• "In case of conflict between a notification issued by the Secretary of the University... and the Resolution itself of said Board of Regents of said University, the latter is controlling for obvious reasons." — This establishes the hierarchy of authority, affirming that the Board's resolution, not subordinate notifications, determines the nature of the appointment.

• Summers v. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 760 — Cited as controlling precedent to define an ad interim appointment as permanent in nature and to distinguish it from a temporary "acting" appointment.
• Government of the Philippine Islands v. Martinez, 44 Phil. 817 — Cited by the CSC and adopted by the Court for the principle that the suppression of evidence within a party's control gives rise to an adverse inference.
• Tolentino v. de Jesus, 56 SCRA 167 — Cited for the rule that a temporary appointment divests the appointee of security of tenure, underscoring why Esteban's appointment could not be deemed temporary.
• Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 126 SCRA 223 and Mercury Drug Co., Inc. v. CIR, 56 SCRA 694 — Cited for the general formula and policy considerations in awarding backwages.

• Section 3, Article XII, 1973 Philippine Constitution — Provides that "No officer or employe in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law." This was the constitutional basis for Esteban's security of tenure.
• Republic Act No. 4196 (PLM Charter), Article 55 — Cited for vesting the power of appointment in the Board of Regents, which is why the President's ad interim appointments required Board confirmation.

• Justice de la Fuente — Concurred fully with the IAC's decision. He voted for the affirmance in toto, believing that under the circumstances (including PLM's bad faith), there should be no reduction of the back salaries awarded by the IAC.