G.R. No. 144153 - MA. CHONA M. DIMAYUGA, VS. MARIANO E. BENEDICTO II, TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, they shall vacate their positions effective 01 July 1998 and turnover their offices to the highest ranking career officials, unless otherwise specifically retained by the Department Heads concerned or extended new appointments by the President. xxx xxx xxx Since she had been effectively removed from her position, petitioner filed on September 6, 1999 a petition for quo warranto before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54733. On July 25, 2000, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision dismissing petitioners suit. The appellate court held that: xxx xxx xxx In the case at bar, petitioner was appointed in a permanent capacity to the position of Executive Director II of the TRB in 1992. At that time, said position was excluded from the coverage of the CES, so petitioner was able to occupy said position although she was not a career service executive officer (CESO). The subsequent inclusion of her position under the CES, however, did not automatically qualify her for the said position as she lacked the required eligibility. At most, the permanent status accorded to her appointment would only allow her to occupy said position until the appointing authority would replace her with someone who has the required eligibility therefor. The CSC, in issuing MC 21, could not have intended to unwittingly permit non-career service officers to hold on defiantly and in a permanent character to career service positions by virtue of their permanent appointments. Such a preposterous interpretation characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications; (2) security of tenure; and (3) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions. Moreover, such an unthinkable interpretation would lead to an absurd situation wherein an incumbent could hold on to his post adamantly for as long as he wants by reason of his permanent appointment, and even without qualifying for said position. xxx xxx xxx Secondly, petitioner may not claim any proprietary right to her post as Executive Director II of the TRB because this would encroach upon the executive powers of the President. Such obstinate refusal by petitioner to vacate said position run counter to the wide latitude given to the appointing authority or to the President, in this matter, in exercising his power of appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Moreover, if We were to espouse petitioners depthless construction of Section 4 of MC 21, unqualified government employees would arrogate to themselves the right to decide to stay permanently in their respective posts. This would leave the appointing authority helpless in exercising his power of appointment that also includes the power of removal. Thirdly, petitioners claim to security of tenure must be rejected. This Court has repeatedly held that this guaranty is available only to permanent appointees