CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
- versus -
ENGR. ALI P. DARANGINA,
G.R. No. 167472
D E C I S I O N
our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse
the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
The undisputed facts are:
Ali P. Darangina, respondent, was a development management
officer V in the Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA). On
appeal by respondent, the CSC issued Resolution No. 01-1543 dated
filed a motion for reconsideration. On
then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 71353. But in its Resolution of
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.
a Resolution dated
our Decision of
CSC filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of
Appeals in a Resolution dated
Section 27, Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, as amended, classifying the appointment status of public officers and employees in the career service, reads:
SEC. 27. Employment Status. Appointment in the career service shall be permanent or temporary.
(1) Permanent status. A permanent appointment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including appropriate eligibility prescribed, in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereof.
(2) Temporary appointment. In the absence of appropriate eligibles and it becomes necessary in the public interest to fill a vacancy, a temporary appointment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed except the appropriate civil service eligibility: Provided, That such temporary appointment shall not exceed twelve months, but the appointee may be replaced sooner if a qualified civil service eligible becomes available.
It is clear that a permanent appointment can issue only to a person who possesses all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility. Differently stated, as a rule, no person may be appointed to a public office unless he or she possesses the requisite qualifications. The exception to the rule is where, in the absence of appropriate eligibles, he or she may be appointed to it merely in a temporary capacity. Such a temporary appointment is not made for the benefit of the appointee. Rather, an acting or temporary appointment seeks to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official functions by authorizing a person to discharge the same pending the selection of a permanent appointee. In Cuadra v. Cordova, this Court defined a temporary appointment as one made in an acting capacity, the essence of which lies in its temporary character and its terminability at pleasure by the appointing power. Thus, the temporary appointee accepts the position with the condition that he shall surrender the office when called upon to do so by the appointing authority. Under Section 27 (2), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the same Code, the term of a temporary appointment shall be 12 months, unless sooner terminated by the appointing authority. Such pre-termination of a temporary appointment may be with or without cause as the appointee serves merely at the pleasure of the appointing power.
the Revised Qualifications Standards prescribed by the CSC, career executive service
eligibility is a necessary qualification for the position of director III in
Plans and Policy Services, OMA. It is
not disputed that on
The Court of Appeals ruled that such replacements are not valid as the persons who replaced respondent are not also eligible. Also, since he was replaced without just cause, he is entitled to serve the remaining term of his 12-month term with salaries.
This Court has ruled that where a non-eligible holds a temporary appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not prohibited.
Moreover, in Achacoso cited earlier, this Court held that when a temporary appointee is required to relinquish his office, he is being separated precisely because his term has expired. Thus, reinstatement will not lie in favor of respondent. Starkly put, with the expiration of his term upon his replacement, there is no longer any remaining term to be served. Consequently, he can no longer be reinstated.
to whether respondent is entitled to back salaries, it is not disputed that he
was paid his salary during the entire twelve-month period in spite of the fact
that he served only from
this Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the assailed Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals. Considering
that respondents employment was validly terminated on
REYNATO S. PUNO
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
RENATO C. CORONA
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
DANTE O. TINGA
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO
REYNATO S. PUNO
 Rollo, pp. 27-32. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guaria III (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso.
v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 93023,
 103 Phil. 391 (1958).
 Austria v. Amante, supra, Summers v. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754 (1948), Orais v. Ribo, 95 Phil. 985 (1953), Pao v. Medina, 94 Phil. 103 (1953), Amora v. Bibera, 99 Phil. 1(1956), Pineda v. Velez, 100 Phil. 1085 (1956), Cayabyab v. Cayabyab, 101 Phil. 681 (1957), Villanueva v. Alera, 101 Phil. 1230 (1957), Cuadra v. Cordova, 103 Phil. 391 (1958), Erauda v. Del Rosario, 103 Phil. 489 (1958), Madrid v. Auditor General, 108 Phil. 578 (1960), Ferrer v. de Leon, 109 Phil. 202 (1960), Hoijilla v. Mario, G.R. No. 20574, February 26, 1965, 13 SCRA 293, Aguila v. Castro, G.R. No. 23778, December 24, 1965, 15 SCRA 565, Santos v. Chico, G.R. No. 24153, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 343, Mendiola v. Tancinco, G.R. No. 26950, July 13, 1973, 52 SCRA 66, Rodriguez, Jr. v. Rodriguez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 41381-82, January 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 276, Abrot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 40641, September 8, 1982, 116 SCRA 468.
v. Ribo, 93 Phil. 985 (1953), Pea
v. City Mayor of Ozamis, 94 Phil. 103 (1954), Quiatchon
v. Villanueva and City of
 Supra, footnote 3.