TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, petitioner vs. CATALINO MACARAIG and RUBEN D. TORRES, in their capacities as Exec ti!

e Secretar" and Secretar" #$ the Depart%ent #$ La&#r and E%p'#"%ent (DOLE), respecti!e'"* and +OSE N. SARMIENTO, respondents. Padilla, Jimenez, Kintanar and Asuncion Law Office for petitioner. ,ACTS1. Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) 2. In compliance with a req est addressed !y the President of the Philippines to "all #epartment $eads% &ndersecretaries% Assistant 'ecretaries% ( rea $eads%" and other )overnment officials% he $i'ed a c# rtes" resi.nati#n. a. This was accepted !y the President "with deep re)rets." *. 'ecretary of +a!or req ested him to t rn over his office to the #ep ty Administrator as officer in, char)e. -. Achacoso protested his replacement and declared he was not s rrenderin) his office !eca se his resi)nation was not vol ntary ! t filed only in o!edience to the President.s directive. /. 0ose 'armiento was appointed Administrator of the POEA% vice the petitioner. 1. Achacoso was informed thereof the followin) day and was a)ain as2ed to vacate his office. a. $e filed a motion for reconsideration , #E3IE#

7. SC- $e filed a petition for prohi!ition and mandamus

a. to ann l the appointment of 'armiento and to prohi!it the respondents from preventin) the petitioner from dischar)in) his d ties as Administrator of the POEA. 4. Achacoso c#ntends that he is a mem!er of the 5areer 'ervice of the 5ivil 'ervice and so en/#"s sec rit" #$ ten re% which is one of the characteristics of the 5areer 'ervice as distin) ished from the 3on,5areer 'ervice. a. 5laimin) to have the ran2 of ndersecretary% he says he comes nder Article I6% 'ection / of P.#. 478% otherwise 2nown as the 5ivil 'ervice #ecree% which incl des in the 5areer 'ervice9 i. *. Positions in the Career Executive Service: namely% &ndersecretary% Assistant 'ecretary% ( rea #irector% Assistant ( rea #irector% ;e)ional #irector% Assistant ;e)ional #irector% 5hief of #epartment 'ervice and other officers of eq ivalent ran2 as may !e identified !y the 5areer E<ec tive 'ervice (oard% all of whom are appointed !y the President. =. $is ar) ment is that in view of the sec rity of ten re en>oyed !y the a!ove,named officials% it was ?!eyond the prero)atives of the President@ to req ire them to s !mit co rtesy resi)nations. ' ch co rtesy resi)nations% even if filed% sho ld !e disre)arded for havin) !een s !mitted ? nder

d ress%@ as otherwise the President wo ld have the power to remove career officials at pleas re% even for capricio s reasons 17. The respondents assert he is not entitled to the ) aranty !eca se he is not a career official (the petitioner did not possess the necessary q alifications when he was appointed Administrator of the POEA in 1=48). ISSUE- AB3 Achacoso is entitled to a sec rity of ten re HELD- 3O. One 0h# h#'ds a te%p#rar" app#int%ent has n# $ixed ten re #$ #$$ice. A permanent appointment can !e iss ed only ?to a person who meets all the req irements for the position to which he is !ein) appointed% incl din) the appropriate eli)i!ility prescri!ed.@ The mere fact that a position !elon)s to the 5areer 'ervice does not a tomatically confer sec rity of ten re on its occ pant even if he does not possess the req ired q alifications. The mere fact that a position !elon)s to the 5areer 'ervice does not a tomatically confer sec rity of ten re on its occ pant even if he does not possess the req ired q alifications. ' ch ri)ht will have to depend on the nat re of his appointment% which in t rn depends on his eli)i!ility or lac2 of it. A person who does not have the req isite q alifications for the position cannot !e appointed to it in the first place or% only as an e<ception to the r le% may !e appointed to it merely in an actin) capacity in the a!sence of appropriate eli)i!les. The p rpose of an actin) or temporary appointment is to prevent a hiat s in the dischar)e of official f nctions !y a thoriCin) a person to dischar)e the same pendin) the selection of a permanent or another appointee. The person named in an actin) capacity accepts the position nder the condition that he shall s rrender the office once he is called pon to do so !y the appointin) a thority. In these circ mstances% the actin) appointee is separated !y a method of terminatin) official relations 2nown in the law of p !lic officers as e<piration of the term. $is term is nderstood at the o tset as witho t any fi<ity and end rin) at the pleas re of the appointin) a thority. Ahen req ired to relinq ish his office% he cannot complain that he is !ein) removed in violation of his sec rity of ten re !eca se removal imports the separation of the inc m!ent !efore the e<piration of his term. This is allowed !y the 5onstit tion only when it is for ca se as provided !y law. The actin) appointee is separated precisely !eca se his term has e<pired. E<piration of the term is not covered !y the constit tional provision on sec rity of ten re. The case of + e)o v. 5ivil 'ervice 5ommission is not applica!le !eca se the facts of that case are different. The petitioner in + e)o was q alified and was e<tended a permanent appointment that co ld not !e withdrawn on the )ro nd that it was merely temporary. In the case at !ar% the petitioner was not eli)i!le and therefore co ld !e appointed at !est only in a temporary capacity. The other cases he cites% viC. Pamantasan n) + n)sod n) Daynila v. Intermediate Appellate 5o rt% Palma,EernandeC v. #e la PaC% and #ario v. Dison% are also not pertinent !eca se they also involved permanent appointees who co ld not !e removed !eca se of their sec rity of ten re.