Gloria v. De Guzman, Jr. GR No.

116183, 6 October 1995 Facts: Private respondents were employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA). Under the PD creating it, the Board of Trustees (BOT) is w/ authority to appoint officials & employees of the college, except the members of the BOT themselves & the President of the College. In line w/ this, the BOT issued a resolution in 1991 w/c declared that all faculty/administrative employees are also subject to the required civil service eligibilities. Thus, private respondents were issued only temporary appointments because at the time of their appointments, they lacked appropriate civil service eligibilities or otherwise failed to meet the necessary qualification standards for their respective positions. The temporary appointments were good & renewable only up to 1992. Private respondent Cerillo was issue a 1-year temporary appointment to the position of Board Secretary II which is until December 31, 1992. However, on March 24, 1992, she was relieved as Board Secretary by reason of loss of confidence & designated as Coordinatior for extension Services. Subsequently, when the PAFCA was converted into a state college, the OIC of the BOT informed private respondents that they shall be deemed separated from the service upon the expiration of their temporary appointments. After the lapse of their temporary appointments, private respondents filed a petition for mandamus & reinstatement praying that the DECS Secretary complete the filling up positions for BOT & order said board to reinstate the respondents in the case at bench to their respective positions. Issue: Whether a mandamus will lie to compel reinstatement of private respondents to their positions Held: No. The judgment of respondent Judge which orders the reinstatement of Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension Services" is patently improper because it finds no support as to facts and the law. Respondent Cerillo, although temporarily extended an appointment as Board Secretary II, was dismissed therefrom because of loss of confidence. This dismissal was neither contested nor appealed from by Ms. Cerillo. There is no question, therefore, that her dismissal as Board Secretary II could not have been the subject of the petition for mandamus and reinstatement filed before respondent Judge. The fact is that private respondent's assignment as "Coordinator for Extension Services" was a mere designation. Not being a permanent appointment, the designation of the position cannot be the subject of a case for reinstatement. Furthermore, even granting that Cerillo could be validly reinstated as "Coordinator for Extension Services," her reinstatement thereto would not be possible because the position is not provided for in the PSCA plantilla. The PSCA could not have made any valid appointment for this inexistent position. This could very well be the reason why she was merely designated as Coordinator. As a mere designee, she could not have acquired any right to the position even if the position existed. At any rate, a mere "designation" does not confer upon the designee security of tenure in the position or office which he occupies in an acting

capacity only. The fact that Cerillo passed the requisite Civil Service Examination after the termination of her temporary appointment is no reason to compel petitioners to reappoint her. Acquisition of civil service eligibility is not the sole factor for reappointment. Still to be considered by the appointing authority are: performance, degree of education, work experience, training, seniority, and, more importantly, as in this case, whether or not the applicant enjoys the confidence and trust of the appointing power. As We said earlier, the position of Board Secretary II, by its nature, is primarily confidential, requiring as it does "not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state." In other words, the choice of an appointee from among those who possessed the required qualifications is a political and administrative decision calling for considerations of wisdom, convenience, utility and the interests of the service which can best be made by the Head of the office concerned. Reappointment to the position of Board Secretary II is an act which is discretionary on the part of the appointing power. Consequently, it cannot be the subject of an application for a writ of mandamus. Reinstatement is technically issuance of a new appointment which is essentially discretionary, to be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. Such exercise of the discretionary power of appointment cannot be controlled, not even by the Court as long as it is exercised properly by the appointing authority. (CALO)

Gayo v. Verceles GR No. 150477, February 28, 2005 Facts: When respondent migrated to the US w/ her family, she retained her Filipino citizenship. In 1993, she returned to the Philippines for good. In 1995, she registered herself as a voter. Between 1993 to 1997, she would travel to the US to visit her children. In 1997, she abandoned her status as a lawful permanent US resident for the purpose of filing her candidacy for mayor in the 1998 elections. She subsequently surrendered her alien registration receipt card (green card) before the Immigration & Naturalization Service of the American Embassy. She ran & won as mayor in 1998. She was re-elected in 2001. Petitioner, also a candidate during the 2001 elections, filed a petition for quo warranto praying that respondent be declared disqualified to hold the position of mayor & that he be proclaimed instead. Issue: Whether respondent was able to meet the residency requirement for the position of

municipal mayor during the 2001 elections Held: Yes. Although respondent effectively abandoned her residency in the Philippines by her acquisition of the status of a permanent US resident, she nonetheless reacquired her residency in the Philippines even before the holding of the 2001 elections. By her act of surrendering her green card to the US Embassy in 1998, her intention to abandon her US residency could not have been made clearer. Moreover, when she decided to relocate to the Philippines for good in 1993, she continue living here & only went to the US on periodic visits to her children who were residing there. Moreover, she was elected mayor in the 1998 elections & served as such for the duration of her term. Such acts are sufficient to establish that respondent intended to stay in the Philippines indefinitely &, ultimately, that she has once again made the Philippines her permanent resident. Considering the purpose of the residency requirement, which is to ensure that the person elected is familiar w/ the needs & problems of his constituency, there can be no doubt that respondent is qualified having been served as mayor previous to her re-election.