TOMAS D.

ACHACOSO, petitioner
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, respondents.

Padilla, Jimenez, Kintanar and Asuncion Law Office for petitioner.

G.R. No. 93023 March 13, 1991

Ponente: CRUZ, J.:

FACTS:

 Tomas was appointed Administrator of the POEA on October 16, 1987. He assumed
office on October 27, 1987. Om January 2, 1990, the President addressed a request to all
“Dept Heads, USecs, Assistance Secretaries, Bureau Heads and other government
officials” to file a courtesy resignation. Tomas followed.
 On April 10, 1990, Sec of Labor requested Tomas to turn over his office to the Deputy
Administrator as the officer-in-charge. He protested his replacement and declared he was
not surrendering his office because his resignation was not voluntary but filed only in
obedience to the President’s directive.
 April 19,1990, he was informed that Jose Sarmiento was appointed Admin of the POEA.
 According to Tomas:
 Member of the Career Service of the Civil Service and thus enjoys security of
tenure(one aspect which differentiates it from the non-career service). He
argues that he has the rank of undersecretary, thus coming under Article IV
Section 5 of the Civil Service Decree:

“Positions in the Career Executive Service: Usec, Assistant Sec, Bureau

Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant RD, Chief
of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as determined by
the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the
President.

 In view of the security of tenure enjoyed by the ones above, it was thus
beyond the prerogatives of the President to make them resign. If any, the
resignation was made out of duress since the President can fire them anytime.

 According to the OSG:

- Although the office of POEA Admin is a career executive service, Tomas himself is
not a career executive service official entitled to security of tenure. As proof, the OSG
offered a certification from the CSC saying that he is not a Career Executive Service
(CES) eligible for failure to participate in a Career Executive Service Development
Program.
 - In connection to his failure to be eligible, Part III Article IV of the Integrated
Reorganization Plan on the career executive service provides that the President shall
be made from a list of CES eligible provided by the board. In exceptional cases
however, the President may appoint someone not in the list provided that such
appointee shall subsequently take the required CES Examination and that he shall not
be promoted to a higher class until he passes.

ISSUE:

Was Tomas entitled to security of tenure?

No, Tomas is not entitled to security of tenure.

What happens when a person who lacks all the qualifications is appointed?

The person is temporary to be terminated at the whim of the appointing authority.

It is settled that a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who meets all the
requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility
prescribed. Since Achacoso did not meet all the requirements, he can only be given a temporary
appointment, which could be withdrawn by the appointing authority at will and at a moment’s
notice.

The mere fact that a person belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security
of tenure on its occupant even if he does not posses the required qualifications. A person who
does not have the requisite qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first
place. At best, its only a temporary appointment.

Thus the acting appointee is distinguished from other means of terminating official relations.
This is called the Expiration of the Term. An acting appointee’s term is understood tobe without
any fixity and enduring at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

When required to relinquish his office, he cannot complain about security of tenureship because
removal imports the separation of the incumbent BEFORE the expiration of the term. Here, once
the appointing authority says he’s done, then that’s the expiration of the term, does not violate
the rule on security of tenure

Was Tomas’ appointment permanent?

Tomas argues that it was intended to be permanent because temporary assignments are not
supposed to exceed 12 months. He served for 3 years.

SC didn’t agree with Tomas. Even if an intention like that was conceived, just an intention would
not make his appointment permanent. Such an appointment would not confer on Tomas because
he did not possess the civil service eligibility at the time he was appointed, nor did it vest him
with the right to security of tenure available to permanent.