G.R. NO. 160502 - TANJAY WATER DISTRICT, CARMELITO A. LIMBAGA, NENITA R. PILAS, ADELINA Q. LIMBAGA, GODOFREDO R. BORROMEO AND RICHARD REGALADO, VS. CESAR A. QUINIT, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly through this Resolution. APPROVED. August 31, 1996 (Signatura) CARMELITO A. LIMBAGA, SR. Chairman (Signatura) (Signature) ADELINA Q. LIMBAGA GODOFREDO R. BORROMEO Member-Secr./Treas. Member (Signatura) (Signatura) NENITA R. PILAS RICHARD V. REGALADO Member Member [9] Respondent forthwith filed a complaint for illegal termination against the TWD Board before the Regional Office No. VII of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). [10] He alleged that the Board failed to justify his termination, let alone observe due process. He also pointed out that his appointment was attested to by the CSC as permanent; hence, he could only be removed for cause. [11] The TWD Board, however, made the following comment on the charge: The status and nature of the appointment of the complaint cannot go beyond the law which created the position of general manager of the water district. And this is Presidential Decree No. 198, specifically Section 23 thereof [as amended by Section 9, PD 768] which provides in part that "said officer [general manager] shall serve at the pleasure of the board." It is humbly submitted that regardless of how many "permanent" appointments the board will issue to a general manager of a water district [which may be considered as purely ultra-vires act] and in spite of any annotation of "permanent" made by the Civil Service Commission on the appointment of any given general manager, said position continues to be primarily confidential. x x x x It is basic and elementary, under this jurisdiction, that the term of office of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority is co-terminus with the trust and confidence reposed upon (sic) the latter unto the former. In the case-at-bar, when complainant breached that trust and confidence reposed on him by the respondent, the act of respondent in withdrawing its trust and confidence on the complainant operates, ipso jure as a termination of complainant's term of office. [12] After due proceedings, the CSC, on September 18, 1997, issued Resolution No. 97-3853 [13] affirming the validity of the Resolution issued by the TWD Board. The CSC ruled that respondent's position as General Manager was primarily confidential in nature and terminable at the pleasure of the TWD Board. It opined that the tenure of the General Manager would last only for as long as he enjoyed the trust and confidence of the Board. There was no violation of his right to due process of law because he was neither removed nor dismissed; his term of office merely expired. The CSC further ruled that, notwithstanding its attestation that respondent's appointment was permanent, the TWD Board was empowered to remove the General Manager from the service on the ground of loss of confidence at any time. [14] Aggrieved, respondent appealed the case to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, alleging that: THE PETITIONER IS A CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBLE AND THUS ENJOYS SECURITY OF TENURE AND CANNOT B