REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

SERENO • The House of Representatives proceeded to hear the case for

G.R. No. 237428 determination whether the complaint was sufficient in form and in
Proceedings to Try Right or Title: Quo Warranto substance.
o During the deliberations, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta
FACTS: stated that as the then-ex officio Chair of the JBC, he was not
• From 1986 to 2006, respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno was informed that the SALNs filed by CJ Sereno were incomplete.
a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of o The House of Representatives also noted that there were
Law. declarations in previous SALNs that were not included in
o She was also the legal counsel of the Philippines in two succeeding SALNs, the failure of her husband to sign on SALN,
international arbitrations. and the execution of the 1998 SALN 5 years later.
• On August 2010, respondent Sereno was appointed by President Aquino • At the same time, Eligio Mallari wrote a letter to the Office of the
as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Solicitor General, requesting the latter to initiate quo warranto proceedings
• In 2012, following the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the against CJ Sereno.
Chief Justice post was declared vacant. • According to the OSG:
o The Judicial and Bar Council announced the application for the o Quo warranto is the proper remedy even for impeachable officials.
position. It alleges that the provision in the Constitution on the removal
o The JBC required that applicants submit all previous Statements of the Chief Justice is not restrictive as it used the word “may”.
of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth and those with incomplete It also cites the fact that the President and Vice President may
or out-of-date documents shall not be interviewed or considered be removed through other means aside from impeachment.
for nomination. o It also claims that the subjects of the quo warranto and the
• During her application for the post, Sereno intimated with the JBC that impeachment are two different things: the former questions the
she resigned from UP Law in 2006 and became a private practitioner validity of her appointment while the latter refers to her
afterwards. committing any impeachable offense in the Constitution.
o Since she was coming from the private sector, she submitted 3 o The petition was seasonably filed and fell within the 1year
SALNs only or those from the time she became an Associate reglementary period as it was only during he impeachment
Justice of the SC. proceedings did the anomalies in her SALN present itself.
o She also added that since the records of her SALNs from UP o The non-compliance with the SALN requirement is proof that
Law are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider that she failed to show her integrity, allegedly an indispensable
those it is infeasible to retrieve all those files. She also stated that requirement under the Constitution.
the clearance made by the UPHRDO should be taken in her • According to CJ Sereno:
favor. o An impeachable officer may only be ousted through
• No record exists if the letter of Sereno was deliberated upon. However, impeachment, citing Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution.
the JBC report stated that she had complete requirements. The CJ cited cases that show that the clear intention of the
• Respondent was then appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme framers of the Constitution was to create an exclusive category
Court. of public officers who may only be removed through
• On August 2017, Larry Gadon filed with the House of Representatives impeachment. This was the method chosen in order to shield
an impeachment complaint against the respondent. these high-ranking officials from harassment suits, such as the
o According to Gadon, CJ Sereno failed to make truthful case at bar, that will prevent them performing their functions.
declarations on her SALNs.
 o CJ Sereno also argues that the fact that the President and the 2. Whether quo warranto petitions and an impeachment proceeding may
Vice President may be removed through other means does not proceed simultaneously
mean that it applies to all impeachable officers. YES. The two have different origins and nature.
o Since a petition for quo warranto may be filed before the RTC, to • A quo warranto petition may proceed independently of each other because
include the Chief Justice in the officials removable by the they are distinct as to jurisdiction, grounds, rules, and limitations.
petition would result to a conundrum where a judge of a lower • It cannot be considered as forum shopping which is defined as the act
court would exercise disciplinary power over an official much of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in
higher in rank. different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
o CJ Sereno also argues that the action was already barred. The on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
Rules of Court provide that the petition should be filed 1 year and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already
from the cause of the ouster, not from discovery of the resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of
disqualification. obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.
o She also argued that since she was a public officer, there was a o The crux of the controversy in the quo warranto action is the
presumption of regularity in her appointment. The OSG determination of whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief
allegedly failed to overcome the presumption created by the Justice position to be considered as an impeachable officer in
clearance certifications from the UP HRDO. the first place. On the other hand, impeachment is for
o Lastly, the fact that SALNs are missing does not mean they were respondent’s prosecution for certain impeachable offenses.
not filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were filed should give an o There can be no forum shopping because the impeachment
inference to a pattern of filing. proceedings before the House is not the impeachment case
proper, since it is only a determination of probable cause. The
ISSUE/S with RATIO: impeachment case is yet to be initiated by the filing of the
1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate.
petition
YES. 3. Whether impeachment is an exclusive remedy for the removal of an
• The SC has concurrent jurisdiction with the lower courts to issue the impeachable officer
extraordinary writs, including quo warranto. A direct invocation of the SC’s NO. Section 2 Article XI of the Constitution uses the word “may”.
original jurisdiction to issue such writs is allowed when there are special • The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion
and important reasons therefor, and in this case, direct resort to SC is and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a
justified considering that the action is directed against the Chief Justice. mere possibility, an opportunity, or an option.
• To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a judicial • The principle in case law is that during their incumbency, impeachable
determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or appointment officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an offense that carries with
of a public official based on predetermined rules while impeachment is a it the penalty of removal, and if they are required to be members of the
political process to vindicate the violation of the public’s trust. Philippine Bar to qualify for their positions, they cannot be charged with
o What is to be determined is the legality of the appointment. The disbarment.
title to a public office may not be contested collaterally but only o The proscription does not extend to actions assailing the public
directly, by quo warranto proceedings. usurpation of a public officer’s title or right to the office he or she occupies.
office is treated as a public wrong and carries with it public • An option to remove by impeachment admits of an alternative mode of
interest, and as such, it shall be commenced by a verified petition effecting the removal.
brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines through
the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor.
 4. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction over quo warranto is violative of the with a burden, and are considered as accepting its burdens and
doctrine of the separation of powers obligations, together with its benefits.
NO. The Supreme Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto
petition is not violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. 7. Whether CJ Sereno is a de facto or de jure officer
• Again, the difference between quo warranto and impeachment must be DE FACTO. She is removable through quo warranto.
emphasized. An action for quo warranto does not try a person’s culpability • The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is ineligible
of an impeachment offense, neither does a writ of quo warranto therefor is that his presumably valid appointment will give him color of
conclusively pronounce such culpability. title that confers on him the status of a de facto officer.
• An act or omission committed prior to or at the time of appointment or • For lack of a Constitutional qualification, CJ Sereno is ineligible to hold
election relating to an official's qualifications to hold office as to render the position of Chief Justice and is merely holding a colorable right or
such appointment or election invalid is properly the subject of a quo title thereto.
warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the commencement o She never attained the status of an impeachable official and her
thereof are present. removal from the office, other than by impeachment, is justified.

5. Whether the lack of filing of SALNs leads a lack of integrity DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED
YES. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of
• The instances show that CJ Sereno’s failure to submit all the necessary UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE
documents show light on her character – that she lacks the essential CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED
quality of integrity to be a part of the Supreme Court. therefrom. The position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared
o Her subsequent appointment did not cure this. vacant and the Judicial and Bar Council is directed to commence the application
and nomination process. This Decision is immediately executory without need of
6. Whether the filing of a SALN is a constitutional and statutory further action from the Court.
requirement
YES.
• Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution states that “A public officer or
employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may
be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities, and net worth.”
• “Failure to comply” with the law is a violation of law, a “prima facie
evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the dismissal from
service of the public officer.” It is a clear breach of the ethical standards
set for public officials and employees.
• The filing of the SALN is so important for purposes of transparency and
accountability that failure to comply with such requirement may result
not only in dismissal from the public service but also in criminal liability.
• she is constitutionally and statutorily mandated to perform a positive
duty to disclose all of his assets and liabilities.
o The Court cited a dissenting opinion of CJ Sereno herself, where
she said that those who accept a public office do so cum onere, or
 SAMSON v. RESTRIVERA misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or
G.R. No. 178454 employee during his/her tenure
Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees, Professionalism • Thus, even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or
employee which is not service-connected, the case is within the
FACTS: jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
• Petitioner Filipina Samson is the department head of the Population o Since the law does not distinguish, neither will the Court.
Commission with office at the Provincial Capitol of Cavite.
• Sometime in 2001, petitioner agreed to help respondent Julia Restrivera 2. Whether the petitioner may be held administratively liable
to register her property under the Torrens System. NO.
o Petitioner told her it will cost a total of P150,000 and accepted • Both the Ombudsman and CA found the petitioner administratively
P50,000 from the respondent to cover the initial expenses. liable for violating Section 4(A)(b) of RA 6713 on professionalism.
o Petitioner failed to register the land because it was government o “Professionalism” is defined as the conduct, aims, or
property. However, she failed to return the 50,000 pesos. qualities that characterize or mark a profession. A
• Respondent then sued the petitioner for estafa. She likewise filed an professional refers to a person who engages in an activity
administrative case with the Ombudsman, alleging grave misconduct or with great competence.
conduct unbecoming of a public officer. • In the context of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713, the observance of
• Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4(b) of R.A. No. professionalism also means upholding the integrity of public office by
6713 and suspended her from office for six months without pay. endeavoring “to discourage wrong perception of their roles as dispensers
o Upon Motion for Consideration, the Ombudsman reduced her or peddlers of undue patronage.”
suspension to 3 months without pay. o Thus, any appearance of impropriety must be avoided.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the Ombudsman. • The Ombudsman concluded that petitioner failed to carry out the
o The CA rled that the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over the standard of professionalism by devoting herself on her personal interest
petitioner despite the act complained of being private matter. to the detriment of her solemn public duty.
o The CA stressed that Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 requires • Evidently, both the Ombudsman and CA interpreted Section 4(A) of
petitioner to perform and discharge her duties with the highest R.A. No. 6713 as broad enough to apply even to private transactions that
degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill. have no connection to the duties of one’s office.
o The Court disagrees.
ISSUE/S with RATIO: • In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, this Court had the occasion to rule
1. Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over a case involving a private that failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4(A)(b) of
dealing by a government employee or where the act complained of is not R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its implementing rules, is not a ground for
related to the performance of official duty disciplinary action.
YES. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction. o In the cited case, the court ruled that the Implementing Rules
• Section 13(1),13 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the do not provide that the official shall be sanctioned for failure to
Ombudsman can investigate on its own or on complaint by any person observe the norms of conduct. Rule X of the IRR states that the
any act or omission of any public official or employee when such act or grounds for administrative disciplinary actions are only those
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper. declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code. In addition, Rule
• Section 16 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 also states that the X specifically mentions 23 acts or omissions which are grounds
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, for disciplinary action. Failure to abide by the norms of
conduct is not one of them.
 • The Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the ruling in the
Domingo case.
• In addition, the petitioner is also not liable for grave misconduct.
o Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer.
o The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial
evidence.
• One cannot be found guilty of misconduct in the absence of substantial
evidence.
o In this case, respondent failed to prove any violation of an
established and definite rule of action or unlawful behavior or
gross negligence.
o Neither was there any evidence of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law, or disregard of established rules by the
petitioner.
• Respondent’s allegation that petitioner meddled in an affair that belongs
to another agency is a serious but unproven accusation.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision dated October 31, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated June 8, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 83422,
as well as the Decision dated January 6, 2004 and Order dated March 15, 2004 of
the Ombudsman in OMB-L-A-03-0552-F, and ENTER a new judgment as
follows:
We find petitioner GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer and impose
upon her a FINE of P15,000.00 to be paid at the Office of the Ombudsman
within five (5) days from finality of this Decision. We also ORDER petitioner to
return to respondent the amount of P50,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per
annum from March 2001 until the said amount shall have been fully paid.
 DE RAMA v. COURT OF APPEALS o The CA issued a Resolution holding that no abuse of power of
G.R. No. 131136 appointment on the part of the outgoing mayor was present. It
Republic Act 6656 likewise denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner.

FACTS: ISSUE/S with RATIO:

• Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, 1. Whether the appointments were valid
petitioner Conrado L. de Rama wrote a letter dated July 13, 1995 to the YES.
Civil Service Commission (or CSC), seeking the recall of the • The grounds for the recall of the appointments that petitioner raised
appointments of fourteen (14) municipal employees. were:
o He justified his recall request on the allegation that the o The rules on screening of applicants based on adopted criteria
appointments of the said employees were “midnight” were not followed;
appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, done o There was no proper posting of notice of vacancy; and
in violation of Article VII, Section. 15 of the 1987 Constitution o The merit and fitness requirements set by the civil service rules
• While the matter was pending before the CSC, three of the employees were not observed.
filed with the CSC a claim for payment of salaries because the petitioner • These are grounds that he could have stated in his order of recall, but
withheld their payment of salaries. which he did not. Neither did he raise said grounds in his original appeal,
o The Legal and Quasi-judicial Division of the CSC issued an but only by way of a supplemental pleading. Failure of the petitioner to
Order finding that since the claimants had assumed their raise said grounds and to present supporting documents constitute a
respective positions and performed their duties pursuant to their waiver thereof.
appointments, they are entitled to the salaries. • The 14 employees were duly appointed following two meetings of the
• The CSC denied petitioner’s request for the recall of the appointments Personnel Selection Board held on May 31 and June 26, 1995.
of the fourteen employees, for lack of merit. The CSC also cited Rule V, o No showing that any of the private respondents were not
Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus Rules, and declared that the qualified for the positions they were appointed to.
appointments of the said employees were issued in accordance with o Moreover, their appointments were duly attested to by the Head
pertinent laws. of the CSC field office at Lucena City.
o CSC also dismissed petitioner’s allegation that these were • It has been held that upon the issuance of an appointment and the
“midnight” appointments, pointing out that the Constitutional appointee’s assumption of the position in the civil service, “he acquires
provision relied upon by petitioner prohibits only those a legal right which cannot be taken away either by revocation of the
appointments made by an outgoing President and cannot be appointment or by removal except for cause and with previous notice
made to apply to local elective officials. and hearing.
• Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the CSC’s resolution. The o It is well-settled that the person assuming a position in the civil
Commission, on the other hand, denied the petitioner’s motion. service under a completed appointment acquires a legal, not just
• Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of an equitable, right to the position. This right is protected not
Appeals, arguing that the CSC arrived at the erroneous conclusion after only by statute, but by the Constitution as well.
it ignored his “supplement to the consolidated appeal and motion for • Petitioner admits that his very first official act upon assuming the
reconsideration” wherein he laid out evidence showing that the subject position of town mayor was to issue Office Order No. 95-01 which
appointments were obtained through fraud recalled the appointments of the private respondents. There was no
previous notice, much less a hearing accorded to the latter.
 • Rule V, Section 9 of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the
Revised Administrative Code specifically provides that “an appointment
accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the
appointing authority and shall remain in force and in effect until
disapproved by the Commission.
o It is the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment initially
approved, but only when such appointment and approval are
proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the civil
service law and regulations
• The only reason advanced by the petitioner to justify the recall was that
these were “midnight appointments.” The CSC correctly ruled, however,
that the constitutional prohibition on so-called “midnight
appointments,” specifically those made within two (2) months
immediately prior to the next presidential elections, applies only to the
President or Acting President

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant

petition for review is DENIED and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 42896 affirming CSC Resolutions Nos. 96-2828 and 96-7527 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto
 DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS o Respondent was warned that upon failure to comply, he will be
G.R. No. 127182 considered as being on Absence Without Leave and
Republic Act 6656 consequently, dropped from the rolls of public service.
• Instead of complying, the respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a
FACTS: Petition for Review.
• On 28 August 1986, private respondent Atty. Jacob F. Montesa was o In the interim, President Fidel Ramos issued A.O. 235 dropping
appointed as Ministry Legal Counsel-CESO IV in the Ministry of Local private respondent from the roster of public servants.
Government. o The CA rendered its decision in favor of private respondent.
o He is not a Career Executive Service Officer not a member of
the Career Executive Service. ISSUE/S with RATIO:
o His appointment was approved by the Civil Service 1. Whether the transfer of the respondent violated his right to security of
Commission. tenure
• In 1987, then President Cory Aquino promulgated Executive Order 292 NO.
which reorganized the Department. • The Court stated that the position of Ministry Legal Counsel-CESO IV
o Pursuant to this, Nicanor Patricio was designated as Chief Legal is embraced in the Career Executive Service.
Service in place of the respondent. The latter was assigned to o Appointments to appropriate classes in the Career Executive
report to the Secretary for special assignments. Service shall be made by the President from a list of career
• Respondent then filed a quo warranto petition with the Supreme Court. executive eligible recommended by the Board.
o The SC ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered his • In addition, the required Career Executive Service eligibility may be then
reinstatement. acquired in the following manner:
• Pursuant to Republic Act 6758, the position of Department Service o Passing the CES examination entitles the examinee to a
Chief was reclassified to Director III. conferment of a CES eligibility and the inclusion of his name in
o Respondent was then reinstated to the position Department the roster of CES eligibles. Conferment of CES eligibility is
Legal Counsel and/or Director III done by the Board through a formal Board Resolution after an
• Secretary Rafael Alunan issued Department Order No. 94-370 evaluation of the examinee’s performance in the four stages of
reassigning the respondent to Director III of Region XI. However, the CES eligibility examinations.
respondent did not report to the new position and instead filed a 90-day • There is no question that private respondent does not have the
leave. required CES eligibility.
o Upon the end of his leave, he signified his intent to reassume his • In Achacoso v. Macaraig, the Court has ruled that
position as Department Legal Counsel o The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service
• Acting Secretary Aguirre advised the respondent to report to Region XI does not automatically confer security of tenure on its
immediately. occupant even if he does not possess the required
• Respondent wrote a memorandum requesting for a reconsideration but qualifications. Such right will have to depend on the nature of
to no avail. his appointment, which in turn depends on his eligibility or lack
o Respondent then appealed to the CSC which sustained his of it. A person who does not have the requisite qualifications for
reassignment to Region XI. The motion for reconsideration was the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place or, only
similarly denied. as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an
• The Department directed the private respondent once again to his new acting capacity in the absence of appropriate eligibles. The
assigned post in Region XI.
 appointment extended to him cannot be regarded as
permanent even if it may be so designated.
• In the current case, his appointment as Ministry Legal Counsel-CESO
IV/Department Legal Counsel and/or Director III, was merely
temporary. Such being the case, he could be transferred or reassigned
without violating the constitutionally guaranteed right to security of
tenure.
o Then too, the cases on unconsented transfer invoked by
private respondent find no application in the present case.
To reiterate, private respondent’s appointment is merely
temporary; hence, he could be transferred or reassigned to
other positions without violating his right to security of
tenure.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Petition is

GRANTED. The April 25, 1996 Decision and the November 20, 1996
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38664 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
 PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. GONZALES 1. Whether Congress has reclassified the provincial administrator position
G.R. No. 185740 from career service to a primarily confidential, non-career service
Republic Act 6656 position
YES.
FACTS: • Prior to RA 7160, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the old Local Government
• Respondent Beatriz Gonzales was appointed as the Provincial Code (LGC), did not include a provincial administrator position among
Administrator of the province of Camarines Norte. the listing of mandatory provincial officials.
o She was appointed by Governor Roy A. Padilla in a permanent o RA 7160 made the position mandatory for every province.
capacity. • In introducing the mandatory provincial administrator position, RA 7160
• Governor Jess Pimentel sent the respondent a memorandum ordering also amended the qualifications for the provincial administrator position.
her to explain why she should not be held administratively liable for gross o RA 7160 retained the requirement of civil service eligibility for a
insubordination/discourtesy and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best provincial administrator, together with the educational
interest in the service. requirements, it shortened the six-year work experience
• An Ad Hoc Investigation Committee was formed. It found the requirement to five years. It also mandated the additional
respondent guilty of the charges and recommended that she be held requirements of residence in the local government concerned,
administratively liable. Governor Pimentel subsequently dismissed and imposed a good moral character requirement.
Gonzales • RA 7160 made the provincial administrator position coterminous with
o Gonzales appealed the dismissal to the CSC. The CSC its appointing authority, reclassifying it as a non-career service position
subsequently modified the decision and suspended the that is primarily confidential.
respondent for 6 months. o Section 480 of RA 7160 made the provincial administrator’s
• Respondent returned to work after the expiration of her suspension. functions closely related to the prevailing provincial
However, the governor dismissed her the following day for “lack of administration by identifying the incumbent with the provincial
confidence” governor to ensure the alignment of the governor’s direction for
o The CSC directed the reinstatement of the respondent. It the province with what the provincial administrator would
clarified that while the Local Government Code made the implement.
provincial administrator position coterminous and highly o As the CSC correctly noted in Resolution No. 0001158, the
confidential in nature, this conversion cannot operate to administrator position demands a close intimate relationship
prejudice officials who were already issued permanent with the office of the governor (its appointing authority) to
appointments as administrators prior to the effectivity of the effectively develop, implement and administer the different
new law. programs of the province
• The petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appellate • To emphasize the close relations that the provincial administrators’
court ruled that the Civil Service Commission’s ruling that reinstated functions have with the office of the governor, RA 7160 even made the
Gonzales as the provincial administrator was correct. provincial administrator position coterminous with its appointing
o In its ruling, the CA stated that lack of confidence was not authority.
among the valid causes for a public officer’s removal and that
lack of due process attended the dismissal. 2. Whether Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as provincial
administrator of the Province of Camarines Norte
ISSUE/S with RATIO: NO. It was a valid exercise of legislative power.
• There is a difference between the nature of the position and an o Serving at the confidence of the appointing authority, the
employee’s right to hold a position. primarily confidential employee’s term of office expires when
o The nature of a position may change by law according to the appointing authority loses trust in the employee.
the dictates of Congress. The right to hold a position, on o When this happens, the confidential employee is not “removed”
the other hand, is a right that enjoys constitutional and or “dismissed” from office; his term merely “expires” and the
statutory guarantee, but may itself change according to the loss of trust and confidence is the “just cause” provided by law
nature of the position. that results in the termination of employment
• Congress can change the qualifications for and shorten the term of • Security of tenure in public office simply means that a public
existing statutory offices. When done in good faith, these acts would not officer or employee shall not be suspended or dismissed except for
violate a public officer’s security of tenure, even if they result in his cause, as provided by law and after due process. It cannot be
removal from office or the shortening of his term expanded to grant a right to public office despite a change in the
• Salcedo and Ignacio v. Carpio and Carreon held that Congress may, by law, nature of the office held.
terminate the term of a public office at any time and even while it is
occupied by the incumbent. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, all premises considered, we hereby GRANT
• In the current case, Congress, through RA 7160, did not abolish the the petition, and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated June 25, 2008
provincial administrator position but significantly modified many of its and the Resolution dated December 2, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
aspects. It is now a primarily confidential position under the non-career SP No. 97425.
service tranche of the civil service.
o This change could not have been aimed at prejudicing Gonzales,
as she was not the only provincial administrator incumbent at
the time RA 7160 was enacted
o Thus, Gonzales’ permanent appointment as provincial
administrator prior to the enactment of RA 7160 is immaterial
to her removal as provincial administrator
• It is a basic tenet in the constitutional system that no proprietary title
attaches to a public office, as public service is not a property right.
o The rule is that offices in government, except those created by
the constitution, may be abolished, altered, or created anytime
by statute. And any issues on the classification for a position in
government may be brought to and determined by the courts.
• Both career and non-career service employees have a right to security of
tenure
o They cannot be removed from office except for cause provided
by law and after procedural due process.
• The concept of security of tenure, however, labors under a variation for
primarily confidential employees due to the basic concept of a “primarily
confidential” position.