Provincial Government of Camarines Norte vs. Gonzales

A permanent appointment to a public office does not guarantee security of tenure when the nature of that office is subsequently reclassified by law as primarily confidential and coterminous, as security of tenure attaches to the nature of the position held at the time of removal, not the nature of the appointment at the time of entry into government service.

Beatriz Gonzales was appointed Provincial Administrator of Camarines Norte in 1991 under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the old Local Government Code, which did not mandate the position but allowed the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to create it. Her appointment was permanent and carried career service status. In 1991, RA 7160 took effect, making the Provincial Administrator position mandatory for every province, coterminous with the appointing authority, and primarily confidential.

• The Permanent Appointment: On April 1, 1991, then-Governor Roy A. Padilla, Jr. appointed Gonzales as Provincial Administrator on a permanent capacity under the old Local Government Code (BP 337).
• Administrative Charges and Initial Dismissal: On March 8, 1999, Governor Jess B. Pimentel charged Gonzales with gross insubordination and conduct prejudicial to the service. An Ad Hoc Investigation Committee found her guilty, and Governor Pimentel dismissed her on September 30, 1999.
• CSC Appellate Proceedings: The CSC modified the dismissal to a six-month suspension in Resolution No. 001418. Governor Pimentel’s appeal was denied in Resolution No. 001952. The CSC subsequently issued Resolution No. 002245 directing Gonzales’ reinstatement.
• Termination for Lack of Confidence: Gonzales was reinstated on October 12, 2000. The following day, October 13, 2000, Governor Pimentel terminated her services for lack of confidence, citing CSC Resolution No. 0001158 which recognized the position as highly confidential and coterminous.
• Second CSC Intervention: The CSC issued Resolution No. 030008, directing reinstatement and ruling that the conversion of the position to coterminous status under RA 7160 could not prejudice Gonzales’ vested right as a permanent appointee. Resolution No. 061988 reiterated this order after Gonzales complained that Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. refused to comply.
• Lower Court Rulings: The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC, holding that Gonzales’ permanent appointment created a vested right protected by the Constitution; that lack of confidence was not a valid ground for dismissal under Section 46 of the Administrative Code; and that the termination violated due process as no hearing was conducted for the October 2000 dismissal.

• Reclassification by RA 7160: Congress reclassified the Provincial Administrator position as primarily confidential and coterminous with the appointing authority under Section 480 of RA 7160; consequently, Gonzales lost any claim to career service security of tenure.
• Nature of Position at Removal: Security of tenure attaches to the nature of the position held at the time of removal, not the nature of the appointment at the time of entry into service. At the time of her termination in 2000, the position was already primarily confidential.
• Inapplicability of EO 503: Executive Order No. 503 applies exclusively to national government employees whose functions are devolved to local government units, not to local officials such as Provincial Administrators. Extending its protection to Gonzales would violate the separation of powers by allowing the President to amend a legislative act.

• Career Service Status: The Provincial Administrator position remains a career service position under Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 807 and the Administrative Code; the implementing rules of RA 7160 cannot alter this statutory classification established by prior law and jurisprudence.
• Non-Retroactivity of Reclassification: Assuming the position was reclassified, such reclassification should not apply retroactively to prejudice her permanent appointment which predated RA 7160.
• Vested Right to Security of Tenure: As a permanent appointee, Gonzales acquired a vested right to the position protected by the Constitution; she could only be removed for cause under Section 46 of the Administrative Code, and "lack of confidence" is not among the enumerated grounds.
• Applicability of EO 503: Section 2(a), paragraph 8 of EO 503 explicitly protects incumbents of coterminous positions (including administrators) who hold permanent appointments, mandating that they continue to enjoy permanent status until they vacate their positions.

• Reclassification of Position: Whether Congress reclassified the Provincial Administrator position from a career service to a primarily confidential, non-career service position under RA 7160.
• Security of Tenure: Whether Gonzales retained security of tenure over her position as Provincial Administrator despite the enactment of RA 7160.

• Reclassification of Position: RA 7160 reclassified the Provincial Administrator position as primarily confidential and coterminous with the appointing authority. The law made the position mandatory (where it was previously optional), altered qualifications (reducing the experience requirement from six to five years and adding residency and moral character requirements), and mandated close interaction with the governor under Section 480(b), requiring the administrator to develop plans, assist in coordination, and advise the governor on management and administration.
• Security of Tenure: Gonzales did not retain security of tenure in the career service. Security of tenure attaches to the nature of the position held at the time of removal. Because the position became primarily confidential, Gonzales served at the pleasure of the appointing authority; loss of trust and confidence constitutes "just cause" for the termination of a primarily confidential employee, whose term merely expires upon such loss.
• Executive Order No. 503: EO 503 does not apply to Provincial Administrators. Its title and whereas clauses limit its application to the transfer of national government personnel to local government units under the devolution scheme of RA 7160. Applying EO 503 to local officials would effectively permit the President to amend RA 7160, violating the separation of powers.

• Legislative Power over Public Offices — Congress possesses the plenary power to create, abolish, and modify public offices. Modifications to the nature of a position (such as changing it from career to confidential) made in good faith—aimed at the office itself and not at the incumbent—do not violate constitutional security of tenure even if they result in the incumbent’s removal.
• Security of Tenure Attachment — Security of tenure is determined by the nature of the position held at the time of removal, not by the nature of the appointment at the time the employee entered government service. A permanent appointment to a position subsequently reclassified as primarily confidential does not immunize the incumbent from the new classification’s incidents.
• Primarily Confidential Positions — Employees in primarily confidential positions serve at the confidence of the appointing authority. Their term of office expires when the appointing authority loses trust in them; this is not a "removal" or "dismissal" in the administrative sense, but an expiration of term, and the loss of confidence itself constitutes the "just cause" for termination.
• No Vested Right to Public Office — There is no vested right to a public office, nor is public service a property right. Offices created by statute may be abolished or modified by statute at any time, even while occupied by an incumbent.

• "The nature of a position may change by law according to the dictates of Congress. The right to hold a position, on the other hand, is a right that enjoys constitutional and statutory guarantee, but may itself change according to the nature of the position."
• "For purposes of determining whether Gonzales’ termination violated her right to security of tenure, the nature of the position she occupied at the time of her removal should be considered, and not merely the nature of her appointment at the time she entered government service."
• "Serving at the confidence of the appointing authority, the primarily confidential employee’s term of office expires when the appointing authority loses trust in the employee. When this happens, the confidential employee is not 'removed' or 'dismissed' from office; his term merely 'expires' and the loss of trust and confidence is the 'just cause' provided by law that results in the termination of employment."
• "There is no vested right to public office, nor is public service a property right. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office."

• Salcedo and Ignacio v. Carpio and Carreon, 89 Phil. 254 (1951) — Followed for the principle that Congress may terminate the term of a public office at any time by law, even while it is occupied by an incumbent.
• Dimayuga v. Benedicto II, 424 Phil. 707 (2002) — Followed; upheld the removal of a permanent appointee when the position was subsequently classified within the Career Executive Service, which the incumbent did not qualify for.
• Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92403, April 22, 1992 — Distinguished; cited by the Court of Appeals but held inapplicable to the extent it suggested permanent status survives a subsequent valid reclassification of the position.
• Gabriel v. Domingo, G.R. No. 87420, September 17, 1990 — Distinguished; the majority held it involved the consequences of illegal dismissal and a change in the position held, not a statutory reclassification of the same position.
• Civil Service Commission v. Javier, 570 Phil. 89 (2008) — Followed to emphasize that there is no vested right to public office and that courts have the final determination as to the classification of positions.

• Section 480, RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Mandates the Provincial Administrator position, prescribes qualifications (including residency and moral character), defines duties involving close coordination with the governor, and establishes the term as coterminous with the appointing authority.
• Section 7, PD 807 (Civil Service Decree) — Classifies positions in the career service; cited as the basis for the pre-RA 7160 status of the position as career service.
• Section 46, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Enumerates grounds for disciplinary action; cited by respondent and the Court of Appeals as not including "lack of confidence."
• Executive Order No. 503 — Rules and Regulations implementing the transfer of personnel from national government agencies to local government units; held inapplicable to local officials.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.

• Mariano C. Del Castillo — Filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion arguing that permanent appointees retain security of tenure despite subsequent reclassification of the position; contended that Executive Order No. 503 applies to protect permanent appointees in coterminous local positions; maintained that the reclassification cannot retroactively strip vested rights acquired under prior law; and cited Gabriel v. Domingo to support the view that a permanent employee remains permanent unless validly terminated under the grounds applicable at the time of appointment.