GLORIA v DE GUZMAN

FACTS: Private respondents were employees of the Philippine Air Force College of
Aeronautics. One of them was Cerillo who was issued a one-year temporary appointment as
Board Secretary II of PAFCA from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992. On March 24, 1992,
Cerillo was relieved from the position by reason of loss of confidence. Subsequently, she was
designated as Coordinator for Extension Services. On June 3, 1992, PAFCA was converted into
a state college to be known as the Philippine State College of Aeronautics. The power of
appointment was retained by the Board. However on December 2, 1992, Col. Loleng informed
private respondents that they shall be deemed separated from service upon the expiration of
their temporary appointments.

Private respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus and Reinstatement for reinstatement
before the RTC of Pasay. Respondent Judge de Guzman rendered a decision ordering the
reinstatement of Cerillo as coordinator for extension services. DECS Secretary Gloria filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo is entitled to reinstatement to the
position of "Coordinator for Extension Services"?

RULING: Petition is granted. The order of respondent Judge de Guzman are hereby declared
null and void and ordered set aside.

RATIO DECIDENDI: Private respondent's assignment to the said position was a mere
designation. Not being a permanent appointment, the designation to the position cannot be the
subject of a case for reinstatement. The fact that private respondent Cerillo passed the requisite
Civil Service Examination after the termination of her temporary appointment is no reason to
compel petitioners to reappoint her. Reappointment to the position of Board Secretary II which is
primary confidential, is an act which is discretionary on the part of the appointing power hence it
cannot be the subject of an application for a writ of mandamus. Such exercise of the
discretionary power of appointment cannot be controlled, not even by the Court as long as it is
exercised properly by the appointing authority. Thus, the order of the lower court for the
reinstatement of the private respondent amounts to an undue interference by the court in the
exercise of a discretionary power vested in the PSCA Board of Trustees.