OMBUDSMAN VS. CSC Inok vs.
Civil Service Commission", it is stated in said Decision
Positions in the CES 3rd level under Sec 7(30, Chapter 2, title 1,
Bk V, EO 292
 Undersecretary
 Asst Sec
 Bureau Director
 Regional director
 Asst. Regional director
 Chief of department service and
 other offices of equivalent rank as may be identified by the
CESB
 All of whom are appointed by the President
 3rd level eligibility is not required for 3rd level officials of
the office of the ombudsman.
In this case,
The positions of Graft Investigation Officer lll [de Jesus,
Clemente & Carandang] are highly technical in nature, as are
those of the judiciary, as they involve investigatorial, quasi
judicial & prosecutorial functions, hence, the appointment to
said positions is characterized by security of tenure
To classify other positions not included in the enumeration as
covered by the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire
CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure is
absurd and will lead to uncosntitutional and unlawful
consequences. It will result either in:
1. Vesting the appointing power for non CES positions in the
president, in violation of the constitution (sec 6, Art XII)
a) SECTION 6. The officials and employees of the Office
of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall
be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the
Civil Service Law.
2. Including in the CES a position not occupied by presidential
appointee, contrary to the revised admin code (EO 292)
INOK VS CSC
that the letter and intent of the law is to circumscribe the Career
Executive Service (CES) to CES positions in the Executive Branch
of Government, and that the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, the Office of the Ombudsman and the
Commission on Human Rights are not covered by the CES
governed by the Career Executive Service Board. Said Decision
effectively granted the petition of Mr. Inok for security of tenure
as Director III of the Commission on Audit despite the absence
of a CES eligibility.
IFURUNG VS. MORALES; VITANGCOL VS. MORALES
As provided in Art. XI, Sec 11 of the Constitution, Secs 7 and 8(3)
of RA 6770, the ombudsman is appointed to a full term of 7
years without reappointment and not simply the unexpired
portion or up to 11/30/12 of the predecessor Omb Gutierrez
who resigned on 5/6/11 (Ifurung vs. Morales; Vitangcol vs.
Morales) Sec 8(3) assures a fresh 7-year term for the successor
of the incumbent ombudsman and his deputies.
Qualification in an appropriate exam is required for
appointment to positions in the first and second levels in the
career service provided that whenever there is a civil service
eligibility actually available for appointment, no person who is
not an eligible shall be appointed even in a temporary capacity.
Exceptions: When immediate filing of vacancy is urgently
required in the public interest or when vacancy is not
permanent.
MODESTO AGYAO VS. CSC
Facts: Petitioner was re-appointed, following the expiration of
his previous temporary appointment, to PEZA Director II by the
PEZA Director-General de Lima. The appointment was
submitted to the Civil Service Commission. The re-appointment
was invalidated by the CSC as petitioner lacked the prescribed
Career Executive Service Office/Career Service Executive
Examination (CESO/CSEE) qualifications. The CSC ruled that the
position of PEZA Director II is above the Division Chief level,
which falls properly under level 3, or Career Executive Service.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which sustained
the ruling of the CSC.
Issue:
Whether or not PEZA Director II falls under level 3 or Career
Executive Service, of the Administrative Code.

Ruling:
For a position to fall under Career Executive Service, the
appointing authority must be the President of the Philippines.
The Administrative code makes this classification based on the
Constitutional powers granted to the President. As such, any
deviation of interpretation would not only be against the
prevailing law (i.e. Administrative Code), but also be
unconstitutional. The position of PEZA Director II is appointed
by the PEZA Director-General, not by the President of the
Philippines. Hence, the CESO/CSEE requirements are not
needed by the appointee.
Important points from full text:
1. CES covers presidential appointees only. Corollarily, as the
position of Department Manager II of the PEZA does not require
appointment by the President of the Philippines, it does not fall
under the CES.
Section 8, Chapter 2, Book V, Title 1 (Subtitle A) of Executive
Order No. 292, otherwise known as The Revised Administrative
Code of 1987, classifies the positions in the Civil Service as
follows:
Section 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service.—( 1)
Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which
requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels
as follows:
(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and
custodial service positions which involve non-professional or
sub-professional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory
capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies;
(b) The second level shall include professional, technical, and
scientific positions which involve professional, technical or
scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity
requiring at least four years of college work up to Division
Chief levels; and
(c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive
Service.
Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7 of EO7[7] 292,
otherwise known as "The Administrative Code of 1987,"
provides:
SECTION 7. Career Service. – The Career Service shall be
characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive examination, or
based on highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity for
advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of
tenure.
The Career Service shall include:
(1) Open Career prior qualification in an appropriate
positions for examination is required
appointment
(2) Closed Career which are scientific, or highly technical in
positions nature; these include the faculty and
academic staff of state colleges and
universities, and scientific and technical
positions in scientific or research
institutions which shall establish and
maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions in the A. Undersecretary,
Career Executive
Service B. Assistant Secretary,
C. Bureau Director,
D. Assistant Bureau Director, E. Regional
Director,
F. Assistant Regional Director, G. Chief of
Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank as may be identified by
the Career Executive Service Board
all of whom are appointed by the
President;
Thus, the CES covers presidential appointees only.
Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman is the appointing
authority for all officials and employees of the Office of the
Ombudsman, except the Deputy Ombudsmen. Thus, a person
occupying the position of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service or Finance and Management Service of
the Office of the Ombudsman is appointed by the Ombudsman,
not by the President. As such, he is neither embraced in the CES
nor does he need to possess CES eligibility.
 Short Facts:

To classify the positions of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service and the Finance and Management
Service of the Office of the Ombudsman as covered by the CES
and require appointees thereto to acquire CES or CSE eligibility
before acquiring security of tenure will lead to unconstitutional
and unlawful consequences. It will result either in (1) vesting the
appointing power for said position in the President, in violation
of the Constitution or (2) including in the CES a position not
held by a presidential appointee, contrary to the Administrative
Code.
DPWH Assistant regional director for National Capital Region
who accepted a temporary appointment without intention to
abandon the permanent position. This manner of acceptance
does not divest employees of security of tenure.
The signing of contract was NOT voluntary for he was made to
understand that the contract was for formality.

Appointment to CES Rank

Upon conferment of a CES eligibility and compliance with the

other requirements prescribed by the Board, an incumbent of a
CES position may qualify for appointment to a CES rank.
Appointment to a CES rank is made by the President upon the
recommendation of the Board. This process completes the
official’s membership in the CES and most importantly, confers
on him security of tenure in the CES.

In this case,

The position of Dept. Manager II of PEZA is not among those

enumerated positions in the CES. Agyao only needs approval of
PEZA Director General to validate his reappointment. AS he
need not possess CESO or CSE eligiblity, the CSC has no valid
and legal basis to invalidate his appointment.

Excerpt from ppt:

The Third Level covers only positions in CES as enumerated in

EO 292 and those identified by CESB as of equivalent rank, all of
whom are appointed by the President (Modesto Agyao Jr. vs.
CSC, 1/18/11). Position of Dept Mgr ll of PEZA is not among
those enumerated positions in CES, much less a position
requiring presidential appointment. Agyao only needs approval
of PEZA Director General to validate his reappointment. As he
need not possess CESO or CSE eligibility, the CSC has no valid
& legal basis to invalidate his appointment.

CASES ON CAREER SERVICE

PALMERA VS. CSC

Illegal dismissal on a career officer;

 ASTRAQUILLO VS MANGLAPUS

Facts: Regarding the argument that his separation from service is

Petitioner was appointed by the President on July 22 1986 as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Chief of
Mission to the United Arab Emirates.
illegal because it was not effected by the President, the Court
held that it was the President who ordered their removal. The
record shows that the President approved the recommendation
of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the termination of their
services.

He occupied the post for two years before he was accused,

along with his wife and cousin-in-law of improper interference
with the Philippine Labor Attaché’s functions.

An investigation was made, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs

recommended to the President the termination of petitioner’s
services as ambassador. The recommendation was “APPROVED
by authority of the President”

He was then notified of the termination of his services effective

immediately, and the designation of Counsellor Donato Felicio
as Charges D’Affaires.

He challenged his removal from the post, citing that the Foreign
Affairs Secretary had no power as department head and without
prior authorization of the President, to terminate his services, he
being a presidential appointee; he claims that under the Foreign
Service Code of 1983, his removal could only be predicated
upon good cause duly established at a hearing of which he was
entitled to notice and an opportunity to defend.

Issue: Must a cause must be explicitly stated pursuant to the

Foreign Service Act or the Civil Service Law?

Held: No.

The Civil Service Law, PD 807, classified employment in the

Government into “career” and “non-career” service.

Petitioner clearly pertains to the Non-Career Service. His

appointment to the Foreign Service was made on “bases other
than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the
career service, his entrance was not based on merit and fitness
determined by competitive examinations or based on
qualifications. This being so, his tenure was coterminous with
that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasures.

Regarding his appointment as chief of mission, the Court held

that it simply meant that as ambassador extraordinary and
plenipotentiary, he was being placed in charge of the embassy
or legation therein.
 SECTION 5 – CAREER SERVICE SECTION 6 – NON-CAREER SERVICE

1. Entrance based on merit and fitness, to
be determined as far as practicable by
competitive examinations, or based on
highly technical qualifications
2. Opportunity for advancement to higher
career positions
Characterized by 1. Entrance on bases other than those of the usual
test of merit and fitness utilized for the career
service; and
2. Tenure which is limited to a period specified by law,
or which is coterminous with that of the appointing
authority or subject to his pleasures, or which is limited
to the duration of a particular project for which purposes
employment was made.

3. Security of tenure

1. Open Career positions for appointment
to which prior qualifications in an
appropriate examination is required;
2. Closed Career positions which are
scientific or highly technical in nature;
these includes the faculty and academic
staff of state colleges and universities and
scientific and technical positions in
scientific or research institutions which
shall establish and maintain their own merit
systems;
3. Positions in the Career Executive Service,
namely: Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant
Bureau Director, Regional Director,
Assistant Regional Director, Chief of
Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank as may be identified by the
Career Executive Service Board, all of whom
are appointed by the President;
Particular Positions falling under
said classification
1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;
2. Department Heads and other officials of Cabinet rank
who hold positions at the pleasure of the President and
their personal or confidential staff(s);
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards
with fixed terms of office and their personal or
confidential staff;
4. Contractual personnel or those whose employment in
the government is in accordance with a special contract
to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or
technical skills not available in the employing agency, to
be accomplished within a specific period, which in no
case shall exceed one year, and performs or
accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own
responsibility with a minimum of directions and
supervision from the hiring agency; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.

4. Career officers, other than those in the

Career Executive Service, who are
appointed by the President, such as the
Foreign Service Officers in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs;

5. Commissioned officers and enlisted men

of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a
separate merit system;

6. Personnel of government-owned or
controlled corporations, whether
performing governmental or proprietary
functions, who do not fall under the
non-career service; and

7. Permanent laborers, whether skilled,

semi-skilled, or unskilled.
 PAGCOR VS SALES
Facts: Salas was appointed by the pagcor chairman as internal
security staff member and assigned to the casino at the Manila
Pavilion Hotel. His employment was terminated by the BOD of
pagcor allegedly for loss of confidence.
Ruling:
It is the nature of the position which finally determines whether
a postiion is primarily confidential, policy determining or highly
technical. The occupant of a particular position could be
considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason
why he was chosen by the appointing authority was the latter’s
belief that he can share a close relationship with the occupant.
Where the position occupied is remote from that of the
appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no
longer predominant. (Proximity rule)
NON CAREER SERVICE
What characterizes the non career service?
1. Entrance on basis other than those of the usual test of merit
and fitness; and
2. Tenure is limited to the period specified by law is co terminus
with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure
or limited to the duration of a particular project.
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE NON CAREER SERVICE?
1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff
2. Department heads and other officials of Cabinet rank whose
positions are at the pleasure of the president and their personal
or confidential staff
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with
fixed terms of office and their persona or confidential staff
4. Contractual personnel
5. Emergency and casual personnel
JOCOM VS. ROBREDO
Regardless of the classification of the position held by a
government employee covered by civil service rules, be it a
career or non-career position, such employee may not be
removed without just cause. An employee who belongs to the
non-career service is protected from removal or suspension
without just cause and non-observance of due process.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT VS BUENAOBRA
Chairman of the Commission on the Filipino Language is a
non-career service personnel whose tenure is limited to seven
years as provided under R.A. No. 7104. Since her tenure is fixed
by law, her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the
appointing authority.
Reiteration:
RULE: non-career service personnel enjoy security of tenure.
They may not be removed without just cause and
non-observance of due process.
Jocom v. Regalado,
Regardless of the classification of the position held by a
government employee covered by civil service rules, be it a
career or non-career position, such employee may not be
removed without just cause. An employee who belongs to the
non-career service is protected from removal or suspension
without just cause and non-observance of due process.
(not in 2014 ppt)
BASIC FEATURES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM
1) The 1st level includes:
a) Clerical
b) Trades
c) Crafts and custodial services positions which involve
non professional or sub professional work.
2) 2nd level includes:
a) Professional
b) Technical
c) Scientific positions
d) Up to division chief level
3) 3rd level covers position in the Career executive service
 (3) Promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for the Civil
Service and adopt plans and programs to promote economical,
CLASSIIFCATION OF CIVIL SERVICE efficient and effective personnel administration in the
1. Under PD 807 and EO 292 government;

a) Career service

b) Non-career service (4) Formulate policies and regulations for the administration,
maintenance and implementation of position classification and
2. Under Art IX-B, Sec 2(2), 1987 constitution: compensation and set standards for the establishment,
allocation and reallocation of pay scales, classes and positions;
a) Appointments in the CS shall be made according to
merit.

i. Competitive positions (5) Render opinion and rulings on all personnel and other Civil
Service matters which shall be binding on all heads of
ii. Non competitive positions
departments, offices and agencies and which may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari;

ART IX-B SEC 2(2) (6) Appoint and discipline its officials and employees in
accordance with law and exercise control and supervision over
 Competitive positions: Appointments in the CS shall be the activities of the Commission;
made according to merit and fitness

 Non competitive positions

 Primarily confidential - denotes not only confidence
but close intimacy which insures freedom from
misgivings or betrayals of personal trust on
confidential matters of state
Policy determining Highly technical - technical skills or training
in the supreme or superior degree.
(7) Control, supervise and coordinate Civil Service examinations.
Any entity or official in government may be called upon by the
Commission to assist in the preparation and conduct of said
examinations including security, use of buildings and facilities as
well as personnel and transportation of examination materials
which shall be exempt from inspection regulations;

(8) Prescribe all forms for Civil Service examinations,

appointments, reports and such other forms as may be required
by law, rules and regulations;
It is the nature and not the label that makes the position
competitive. The executive has the power to declare the
classification of non competitive position upon (9) Declare positions in the Civil Service as may properly be
recommendation of the CSC (Sec 12, Book V, EO 292) subject primarily confidential, highly technical or policy determining;
however to judicial review.

(10) Formulate, administer and evaluate programs relative to

SECTION 12, BOOK V, EO 292. Powers and Functions.—The the development and retention of qualified and competent
Commission shall have the following powers and functions: work force in the public service;

(1) Administer and enforce the constitutional and statutory
provisions on the merit system for all levels and ranks in the
Civil Service;
(2) Prescribe amend and enforce rules and regulations for
carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and
other pertinent laws;
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or
brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices
and of the agencies attached to it. Officials and employees who
fail to comply with such decisions, orders, or rulings shall be
liable for contempt of the Commission. Its decisions, orders, or
rulings shall be final and executory. Such decisions, orders, or
rulings may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by
the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a
copy thereof;
(12) Issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for the
production of documents and records pertinent to
investigations and inquiries conducted by it in accordance with
its authority conferred by the Constitution and pertinent laws;
(13) Advise the President on all matters involving personnel
management in the government service and submit to the
President an annual report on the personnel programs;
(14) Take appropriate action on all appointments and other
personnel matters in the Civil Service including extension of
Service beyond retirement age;
(15) Inspect and audit the personnel actions and programs of
the departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, local government
units and other instrumentalities of the government including
government-owned or controlled corporations; conduct
periodic review of the decisions and actions of offices or officials
to whom authority has been delegated by the Commission as
well as the conduct of the officials and the employees in these
offices and apply appropriate sanctions whenever necessary;
(16) Delegate authority for the performance of any function to
departments, agencies and offices where such function may be
effectively performed;
(17) Administer the retirement program for government officials
and employees, and accredit government services and evaluate
qualifications for retirement;
(18) Keep and maintain personnel records of all officials and
employees in the Civil Service; and
(19) Perform all functions properly belonging to a central
personnel agency and such other functions as may be provided
by law.
TERM OF OFFICE VS. TENURE OF INCUMBENT
TERM TENURE
Time during which officer Term during which
may claim to hold office as incumbent actually holds
of right an d fixes the office.
interval after which the
incumbents shall succeed
one another
Not affected by holdover
Importance of distinction:
Constitutional principle of non removal of due process of law
would be negated if congress could legally make tenure of
officials dependent on pleasure of the president.
BAUTISTA VS SALONGA
Facts: August 27, 1987: President Cory Aquino appointed
petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista as permanent Chairman of
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
December 22, 1988: Bautista took her oath of office to Chief
Justice Marcelo Fernan and immediately acted as such.
January 9, 1989: The Secretary of the Commission on
Appointments (CoA) wrote a letter to Bautista requesting for her
presence along with several documents at the office of CoA on
January 19. Bautista refused to be placed under CoA's review.
Bautista filed a petition with the Supreme Court.
While waiting for the progress of the case, President Aquino
appointed Hesiquio R. Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of the
Commission on Human Rights" but he was not able to sit in his
appointive office because of Bautista's refusal to surrender her
post.
Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides that the tenure of the
Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR should be at the
pleasure of the President thus stating that Bautista shall be
subsequently removed as well.
Ruling:
When Executive Order No. 163 was issued, the evident purpose
was to comply with the constitutional provision that "the term
of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the
Members of the Commission (on Human Rights) shall be
provided by law" (Sec. 17(2), Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution).
the
As the term of office of the Chairman (and Members) of the
Commission on Human Rights, is seven (7) years, without
reappointment, as provided by Executive Order No. 163, and
consistent with the constitutional design to give the
Commission the needed independence to perform and
accomplish its functions and duties, the tenure in office of said
Chairman (and Members) cannot be later made dependent on
the pleasure of the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 163-A, 30 JUNE 1987, PROVIDING THAT
THE TENURE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS SHALL BE AT THE PLEASURE
OF THE PRESIDENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Note: The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities
of the members of the Commission shall be provided by law.
BONDOC VS PINEDA
Members of the HRET as "sole judge" of congressional election
contests, are entitled to security of tenure just as members of
the judiciary enjoy security of tenure under our Constitution
(Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Therefore, membership in the House Electoral Tribunal may not
be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the expiration of
the member's congressional term of office, his death,
permanent disability, resignation from the political party he
represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another
political party, or removal for other valid cause.
A member may not be expelled by the House of Representatives
for "party disloyalty" short of proof that he has formally
affiliated with another political group. As the records of this case
fail to show that Congressman Camasura has become a
registered member of another political party, his expulsion from
the LDP and from the HRET was not for a valid cause, hence, it
violated his right to security of tenure.
Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of
membership in the HRET. —
As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan.
They must discharge their functions with complete detachment,
impartiality, and independence even independence from the
political party to which they belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party"
and "breach of party discipline," are not valid grounds for the
expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling
Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a
conscience vote" in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result
of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the
recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of
Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an
injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of
expulsion against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and
void.
REPUBLIC VS IMPERIAL
Requisites for effective operation of rotational scheme for
Constitutional Commissioners
The operation of the rotational plan requires two conditions,
both indispensable to its workability:
(1) that the terms of the first three commissioners should start
on a common date; and
(2) that any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability
before the expiration of the term should only be filled only for
the unexpired balance of the term.
Without satisfying these conditions, the regularity of the
intervals between appointments would be destroyed, and the
evident purpose of the rotation (to prevent that a four-year
administration should appoint more than one permanent and
regular commissioner) would be frustrated.
PPT:
1. They should start on a common date and
2. Should lead to a regular recurrence of 2-year interval
between expiration of terms.
GAMINDE VS. COA
Facts: Thelma Gaminde was appointed by the President of the
Philippines as Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, ad
interim and assumed office on June 22, 1993 after oath of office.
The Commission on Appointments (COA) and the Congress of
the Philippines confirmed the appointment on September 7,
1993. Gaminde, on February 24, 1998, sought the Office of the
President for clarification on the expiry date of her term of office.
In response to her request, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
opined that her term office will expire on February 2, 2000
instead of February 2, 1999.

Relying on said advisory opinion, Gaminde remained in office
after February 2, 1999. However, on February 4, 1999, Chairman
Corazon Alma de Leon wrote COA requesting opinion whether
or not Gaminde and her co-terminus staff may be paid their
salaries notwithstanding the expiration of their appointments
on February 2, 1999. The General Counsel of COA issued an
opinion on February 18, 1999 that “the term of Commissioner
Gaminde has expired on February 2, 1999 as stated in her
appointment conformably with the constitutional intent.”
Consequently, on March 24, 1999, CSC Resident Auditor Flovitas
Felipe issued a Notice of Disallowance, disallowing in audit the
salaries and emoluments of Gaminde and her co-terminus staff
effective February 2, 1999. Gaminde appealed COA’s
disallowance but it was dismissed, and affirmed the propriety of
the disallowance; and held that the issue of Gaminde’s office
term may be properly addressed by mere reference to her
appointment paper which set the expiration date of February 2,
1999, and that the Commission was bereft of power to
recognize an extension of her term, not even with the implied
acquiescence of the Office of the President. Gaminde moved for
reconsideration, but was denied by COA.
Issue: Whether the term of office of Thelma Gaminde, as
Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, to which she was
appointed on June 11, 1993, expired on February 2, 1999, as
stated in the appointment paper, or on February 2, 2000, as
claimed by her.
Ruling: The term of office of Thelma P. Gaminde as the CSC
Commissioner, as appointed by President Fidel V. Ramos,
expired on February 2, 1999. However, she served as de-facto
officer in good faith until February 2, 2000.
The term of office of the Chairman and members of the Civil
Service Commission is prescribed in the 1987 Constitution
under Article IX-D, Section 1 (2):
“The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by
the President withthe consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.
Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for
seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another
Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”
Therefore, COA erred in disallowing in audit such salary and
other emoluments. Gaminde and her co-terminus staff are
entitled to receive their salary and other emoluments for actual
service rendered.
HERNANDEZ VS LANZUELA
The expiry of the term of the petitioner, in his capacity as an ex
officio member of the sangguniang bayan of nabua, camarines
sur being elected rpesident of the liga ng mga barangay
coincides with the expiration of the term of office of regular
members (Hernandez vs Lanzuela).
Under Sec 494 LGC, ex officio Sanggunian members shall serve
as such only during their term as presidents of the liga chapters
which in no case shall be beyond the term of the office of the
sanggunian concerned. Petitioner’s position could not extend
beyond term 1992-1995.
FUNA VS VILLAR
RULE: A COA commissioner like respondent Villar who serves for
a period less than seven (7) years cannot be appointed as
chairman when such position became vacant as a result of the
expiration of the 7-year term of the predecessor (Carague).
Such appointment to a full term is not valid and constitutional,
as the appointee will be allowed to serve more than seven (7)
years under the constitutional ban in Sec 1(2), Article IX-D of the
Constitution. [He cannot serve an aggregate of more than 7
years]
On the other hand, a commissioner who resigned before
serving his 7- year term can be extended an appointment to the
position of chairman for the unexpired period of the term of the
latter, provided the aggregate of the period he served as
commissioner and the period he will serve as chairman will not
exceed seven (7) years. This situation will only obtain when the
chairman leaves the office by reason of death, disability,
resignation or impeachment.
Provision:
Art. IX(D), Sec. 1(2).––The Chairman and the Commissioners
shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall
hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and
the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.
A commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for
less than seven years is eligible for an appointment to the
position of Chairman for the unexpired portion of the term of
the departing chairman.
Such appointment is not covered by the ban on reappointment,
provided that the aggregate period of the length of service as
commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of the
predecessor will not exceed seven (7) years and provided
further that the vacancy in the position of Chairman resulted
from death, resignation, disability or removal by impeachment.
The Court clarifies that "reappointment" found in Sec. 1(2), Art.
IX(D) means a movement to one and the same office
(Commissioner to Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman).
On the other hand, an appointment involving a movement to a
different position or office (Commissioner to Chairman) would
constitute a new appointment and, hence, not, in the strict legal
sense, a reappointment barred under the Constitution.
Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or
designated in a temporary acting capacity.
Excerpt from ppt:
A COA Commissioner like respondent Villar who serves for a
period less than 7 years cannot be appointed as chairman when
such position became vacant as a result of the expiration of the
7-year term of the predecessor. Such appointment to a full term
is not valid & constitutional, as the appointee will be allowed to
serve more than 7 years under constitutional ban in Sec. 1(2),
Art. lX-D, Const. (Funa vs. COA Chair, 24 April 2012).
Note: “The Chairman & Commissioners shall be appointed by
the Pres. xxx for a term of 7 years without reappointment.”
 Appointment of members in constitutional commissions
after expiration of uneven terms of office of the 1st set of
commissioners shall be for a fixed term of 7 years;
appointment for a lesser period is void and
unconstitutional.
 Appointing authority can’t shorten full term of 7 years in
case of expiration of term as thsi will distort rotational
system set in the constitution.
 Appointment to vacancy resulting from:
 Death
 Resignation
 Disability or
 Impeachment
Shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term of the
predecessor but it cannot be less than the unexpired
portion.
 Members appointed for a full term and served the entire
period are barred from reappointment to any position in
the commission.
FUNA VS VILLAR
(different ppt slide)
A commissioner who resigns after serving for less than 7 years is
eligible for appointment to post of Chair for unexpired portion
of term of the departing chairman (resulting from death,
resignation, disability or impeachment). Such appointment is
not covered by ban on reappointment. Reappointment means a
movement to one & same office (Comm. to Comm. or Chair to
Chair). An appointment to a different position or office (Comm.
to Chair) is a new appointment & not a reappointment barred
under the Constitution.
Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
(this one not in 2014 ppt)
CSC VS CA AND PCSO
Executive and managerial positions in the career service other
than those in Section 7(3), Chapter 2, Title 1, Book V of EO 292
shall belong to the second level. These positions are:
Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely,
1. Undersecretary,
2. Assistant Secretary,
3. Bureau Director,
 4. Assistant Bureau Director,
5. Regional Director,
6. Assistant Regional Director,
7. Chief of Department Service and
8. other officers of equal rank as may be identified by the
Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by
the President;
The position of Assistant Department Manager II is not one of
those enumerated under the Administrative Code of 1987.
The CESB has not identified the position to be of equal rank to
those enumerated. Lastly, without a doubt, the holder of the
position of Assistant Department Manager II is appointed by the
PCSO General Manager, and not by the President of the
Philippines. Accordingly, the position of Assistant Department
Manager II in the PCSO is not covered by the third-level or CES,
and does not require CSE eligibility.
DATU ABAS KIDA VS SENATE
Section 7(1), Article VII of RA 9054, allowing for the hold over of
elective local officials in the ARMM, finds no basis in the
Constitution. Indeed, Section 7(1) contravenes the Constitution
by extending the term of office of such elective local officials
beyond the three year period fixed in Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
be three years and no such official shall serve for more than
three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which he was elected.
Congress cannot extend their term. RA10153 authorizing the
president to appoint OICS for the officers of the Regional
Governor and members of the Regional Legislative Assembly
until those elected in the synchronized elections assume office
is valid.
The basis is Sec 16, Art. VII:
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls or officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall
also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank
in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
This provision classifies into four groups the officers that
the President can appoint. These are:
First, the heads of the executive departments;
ambassadors; other public ministers and consuls; officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, from the rank of colonel or
naval captain; and other officers whose appointments are
vested in the President in this Constitution;
Second, all other officers of the government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law
to appoint; and
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the
Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
Since the President's authority to appoint OICs emanates
from RA No. 10153, it falls under the third group of officials that
the President can appoint pursuant to Section 16, Article VII of
the Constitution. Thus, the assailed law facially rests on clear
constitutional basis.
If at all, the gravest challenge posed by the petitions to the
authority to appoint OICs under Section 3 of RA No. 10153 is
the assertion that the Constitution requires that the ARMM
executive and legislative officials to be "elective and
representative of the constituent political units." This
requirement indeed is an express limitation whose
non-observance in the assailed law leaves the appointment of
OICs constitutionally defective.
From ppt:
A law allowing the elective officials in ARMM to remain in office
in holdover capacity until those elected in synchronized
elections assume office would violate the 3-year term limit in
Sec. 8 Art. X Const. This would be an act of appointment by
Congress & an unconstitutional intrusion into constitutional
appointment power of the President (Datu Kida vs. Phil. Senate,
10/18/11).
Note: “The term of office of elective local officials, except
barangay officials, w/c shall be determined by law, shall be three
years xxx”
(not in 2014 ppt)
WHAT IS SECURITY OF TENURE?
(not in ppt, researched) Security of tenure is a basic right of
both public and private employees. Security of tenure means
that, in case of regular employment, the services of any one of
the workers cannot just be terminated except for a just cause or
after a due process.
In case of illegal dismissal of an employee of the CS, the twin
award of reinstatement and payment of full wages are dictated
by the constitutional mandate to protect civil service
employee’s right to security of tenure.
Anything less than this falls short of the justice due to the
government employees unfairly removed from office.
PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL POSITIONS
Rule: Tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions
ends upon loss of confidence. Their term lasts so long as
confidence endures. Cessation is not a removal but expiration of
term.
CADIENTE VS. SANTOS
FACTS: Sept. 13, 1971 – Cadiente was appointed by the then
Mayor Lopez as City Legal Officer of Davao City --- appointment
was duly attested & approved as “permanent” by the CSC under
RA 2260
.Jan. 6, 1972 – new incumbent Mayor Santos (respondent) sent
Cadiente a letter advising him that his services as the Legal
Officer of Davao City are dispensed with effective the receipt of
the letter on the ground that his position is primarily
confidential in nature
Mayor Santos then appointed Atty. Clapano as the new City
Legal Officer of Davao City
CSC – decided in favor of Cadiente stating that the position of
Cadiente is not among those positions enumerated in RA 2260
as belonging to the non-competitive service
City Council of Davao – passed Res. # 210 --- considering and
recognizing Cadiente as the rightful City Legal Officer ---
however respondents still decline & refuse to recognize
Cadiente
Feb. 8, 1972 --- CSC returned appointment of Clapano stating
that they had overlooked the fact that Cadiente is already 57 y/o
& therefore, authority of his appointment be first secured from
the Office of the President (Sec. 6, RA 728)
Cadiente filed w/ CFI of Davao City a petition for mandamus,
quo warranto w/ PI against respondents --- dismissed on the
ground:
a.Mun. Atty., Prov. Atty, & City Legal Officer are by their nature,
primarily confidential & therefore, belong to the non-competitive
service because the function attached to the office requires trust
& confidence of the appointing authority
Issue:
W/N the position of City Legal Officer is one primarily
confidential in nature w/c will render the termination of
Cadiente valid?
Ruling: YES
1. Primarily Confidential – denotes not only confidence in the
aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but
primarily close intimacy w/c insures freedom of intercourse, w/o
embarrassment on freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust on confidential matters of the state.
2. Tenure of officials holding this position ends upon loss of
confidence, because theor term of office lasts only as long as
confidence endures & thus their cessation does not involve
removal but an expiration of term.
3. When Mayor Santos terminated the service of Cadiente, he
was not removed nor dismissed but his term merely expires ---
there being no removal or dismissal, there was no violation of
the constitutional provision that “no officer or employee in the
civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except as cause
provided by law”
GRINO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Facts: Petitioner Sixto Demaisip was the first appointed
Provincial Attorney of Iloilo. He resigned and recommended
respondent Teotimo Arandela as his replacement. The OIC
governor approved the recommendation and assigned
Arandela as his replacement.
On February 2, 1988, petitioner Simplicio Griño assumed office
as the newly elected governor of Iloilo. One month later, he
informed respondent Arandela and all the legal officers at the
Provincial Attorney's Office about his decision to terminate their
services. In his letter, petitioner Griño made mention of an
article pertaining to the Iloilo office of the Provincial Attorney
which appeared in the Panay News and which "undermined that
trust and confidence" that he reposed on them. Petitioner
Demaisip was reappointed by Governor Griño as the Provincial
Attorney
Arandela appealed the action taken by Governor Grino to the
Merit Systems Protection Board of the CSC. The MSPB declared
the termination illegal, and ordered Arandela and others to be
immediately restored to their positions, with backwages. This
was affirmed by the CSC.
Gov. Grino now filed a petition for review assailing the decision
of the MSPB and CSC. He relied on the case of Cadiente, which
ruled that a city legal officer was a primarily confidential
position. He argued that since a provincial attorney and a city
legal officer has similar functions, the provincial attorney is also
a primarily confidential position, one requiring utmost
confidence on the part of the mayor to be extended to said
officer
Issue: WON the position of a Provincial Attorney and Legal
Officer were confidential in character and thus can be
terminated upon loss of trust
Ruling: Yes the Provincial Attorney and Legal officer were
confidential position.
In Cadiente vs. Santos, the court ruled that the position of a city
legal officer is undeniably one which is primarily confidential in
this manner:
“The position of a City Legal Officer is one requiring that utmost
confidence on the part of the mayor be extended to said officer.
The relationship existing between a lawyer and his client,
whether a private individual or a public officer, is one that
depends on the highest degree of trust that the latter entertains
for the counsel selected. The phrase "primarily confidential"
"denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which
insures freedom of intercourse, without embarrassment or
freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust on
confidential matters of state”
The court agreed to the petitioners that the Cadiente case can
be made applicable to the provincial attorneys.
The positions of city legal officer and provincial attorney were
created under RA5185, which categorized them together as
positions of trust. Both the provincial attorney and the city legal
officer serve as a legal adviser and legal officer for the civil cases
of the province and the city that they work for. Their services are
precisely categorized by law to be “trusted services.”
A comparison of these 2 positions under the LGC would reveal
the close similarity of the 2 positions. Said functions clearly
reflect the highly confidential nature of the 2 offices and the
need for a relationship based on trust between the officer and
the head of the LGU he serves. The fact that the position of
Arandela as provincial attorney has already been classified as
under career service and certified as permanent by the CSC
cannot conceal or alter its highly confidential nature. Since in
the Cadiente case the city legal officer was declared by this
Court to be primarily confidential, the Court must also hold that
the position of provincial attorney is also primarily confidential.
To rule otherwise would be tantamount to classifying 2
positions with the same nature and functions in to incompatible
categories
Arandela’s termination is valid. The tenure of an official holding
a primarily confidential position ends upon loss of confidence.
He was not dismissed or removed from office, his term merely
expired.
With respect to the legal assistants and subordinates of the
provincial attorney (who were also terminated along with
Arandela), they have been employed due to their technical
qualifications. Their positions are highly technical in character
and not confidential. Thus they are PERMANENT EMPLOYEES
and they belong to the category of CLASSIFIED employees
under the CSL. Thus, the positions are permanent and they
enjoy security of tenure.
SECTION 480, RA 7160
ARTICLE X
The Administrator
Section 480. Qualifications, Terms, Powers and Duties.
(a) No person shall be appointed administrator unless he is a
citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local government
unit concerned, of good moral character, a holder of a college
degree preferably in public administration, law, or any other
related course from a recognized college or university, and a
first grade civil service eligible or its equivalent. He must have
acquired experience in management and administration work
for at least five (5) years in the case of the provincial or city
administrator, and three (3) years in the case of the municipal
administrator.
The term of administrator is coterminous with that of his
appointing authority.
The appointment of an administrator shall be mandatory for the
provincial and city governments, and optional for the municipal
government.
(b) The administrator shall take charge of the office of the
administrator and shall:
(1) Develop plans and strategies and upon approval thereof by
the governor or mayor, as the case may be, implement the same
particularly those which have to do with the management and
administration-related programs and projects which the
governor or mayor is empowered to implement and which the
sanggunian is empowered to provide for under this Code;
(2) In addition to the foregoing duties and functions, the
administrator shall:
(i) Assist in the coordination of the work of all the officials of the
local government unit, under the supervision, direction, and
control of the governor or mayor, and for this purpose, he may
convene the chiefs of offices and other officials of the local
government unit;
(ii) Establish and maintain a sound personnel program for the
local government unit designed to promote career
development and uphold the merit principle in the local
government service;
(iii) Conduct a continuing organizational development of the
local government unit with the end in view of the instituting
effective administrative reforms;
(3) Be in the frontline of the delivery of administrative support
services, particularly those related to the situations during and
in the aftermath of man-made and natural disasters and
calamities;
(4) Recommend to the sanggunian and advise the governor and
mayor, as the case may be, on all other matters relative to the
management and administration of the local government unit;
and
(5) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties
and functions as may be prescribed by law or by ordinance.
SANTOS VS MACARAIG
The petitioner's designation as the permanent representative of
the Philippine Government to the United Nations and other
International Organizations in Geneva (Annex B, p. 34, Rollo),
was one based on the special trust and confidence which the
appointing power, the President, had in the appointee. Once
that trust and confidence ceased to exist, the incumbent's
continuance in the position became untenable.

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions

ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts
only as long as confidence in them endures (Corpus vs.
Cuaderno, 13 SCRA 591). When that confidence is lost and the
officer holding the position is separated from the service, such
cessation is not removal from office but merely an expiration of
his/her term (Cadiente vs. Santos, 142 SCRA 280).

An incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at

the pleasure of the appointing power. When the pleasure turns
into displeasure, the incumbent is not removed or dismissed
from office — his term merely expires (Ingles vs. Mutuc, 26
SCRA 171).

"Primarily confidential" denotes "not only confidence in the

aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but
primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse
without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of
betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state"
(Pinero vs. Hechanova, 18 SCRA 417; citing De los Santos vs.
Mallare, 87 Phil. 289).

It is the fact of loss of confidence, not the reason for it, that is
important and controlling. As holder of a primarily confidential
position, petitioner's foreign assignment was at the pleasure of
the President. The recall order terminating her tour of duty in
Geneva and returning her to the home office was merely a
change of post or transfer of location of work.

Petitioner may not justifiably assail the appointment of Narcisa

Escaler as her replacement in Geneva because the power to
appoint is essentially discretionary. The appointing power, the
President, has the right of choice which she may exercise freely,
according to her best lights (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila vs. Court of Appeals, 140 SCRA 22). This Court may not
order the reinstatement of the petitioner to her former position
in Geneva for that would be tantamount to a usurpation by this
Court of the power of appointment, which is the exclusive
prerogative of the Chief Executive (Article VII, Section 16, 1987
Constitution). It would violate the system of separation of
powers which inheres in our democratic republican form of
government.