KMVS2

ACHACOSO v MACARAIG, JR
TOMAS D. ACHACOSO vs. CATALINO MACARAIG and RUBEN D. TORRES, in their capacities as
Executive Secretary and Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), respectively;
and JOSE N. SARMIENTO

FACTS: Tomas D. Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration (POEA). Approximately 3 years thereafter, Achacoso filed a
courtesy resignation in compliance with the President’s request to do so. Following the
acceptance of his resignation, he was requested by the Secretary of Labor to turn over his office
to the Deputy Administrator as officer in-charge. He protested his replacement and refused to
surrender his office since his resignation was not voluntary but in obedience with the President’s
directive. Nonetheless, Jose Sarmiento was appointed Administrator of the POEA. Achacoso
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied hence his petition to the Supreme Court for
prohibition and mandamus.
Achacoso contends that he is a member of the Career Service of the Civil Service and
so enjoys security of tenure, which is one of the characteristics of the Career Service as
distinguished from the Non-Career Service. His argument is that it was "beyond the prerogatives
of the President" to require them to submit courtesy resignations for being protected by the
security of tenure. Such courtesy resignations, even if filed, should be disregarded for having
been submitted "under duress," as otherwise the President would have the power to remove
career officials at pleasure, even for capricious reasons. He concludes that as his removal was
illegal, there was no vacancy in the disputed office to which Sarmiento could have been validly
appointed.
In the Solicitor General’s comment, he concedes that the office of POEA Administrator is
a career executive service position but submits that Achacoso himself is not a career executive
service official entitled to security of tenure because he has not participated in a Career
Executive Service Development Program (CESDP) and is not a CES eligible.
Respondents contend that Achacoso was not a career executive service eligible at the
time of his appointment. Hence, not having taken the Career Service Examination, he could not
claim that his appointment was permanent and guaranteed him security of tenure in his position.
ISSUE: Whether or not Achacoso was entitled to security of tenure
RULING: No, Achacoso was not entitled to security of tenure.
The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically
confer security of tenure on its occupant even if he does not possess the required qualifications.
Such right will have to depend on the nature of his appointment, which in turn depends on his
eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not have the requisite qualifications for the position
cannot be appointed to it in the first place or, only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed
to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of appropriate eligibles.
Achacoso was not eligible. At best, his appointment could be regarded only as
temporary. Therefore, it could be withdrawn at will by the appointing authority and "at a
moment's notice," conformably to established jurisprudence. “One who holds a temporary
appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment can be terminated at the pleasure of
the appointing power, there being no need the show that the termination is for cause.”