[16] BINAMIRA v. GARRUCHO, JR. o “It appearing ...
that the present General Manager of the Philippine
GR NO. 92008 | JULY 30, 1990
CRUZ, J.
PETITIONERS: RAMON P. BINAMIRA
RESPONDENTS: PETER D. GARRUCHO, JR.
TOPIC: Appointment v. Designation
CASE SUMMARY: The Minister of Tourism sent Binamira a Memo, which stated that the
latter is now General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. Later on, the new
Secretary of Tourism removed Binamira from his post. President Aquino sent a Memo to the
new Secretary of Tourism, stating that Binamira’s appointment was not in accordance with
Sec. 23-A of PD 564 and thus made the said Secretary the GM for the time being. Binamira
questioned his removal. The issue is whether or not Binamira was validly appointed a GM of
PTA? No he was not appointed by the President, but he was merely designated by the
Minister of Tourism.
DOCTRINE: There is a clear distinction between appointment and designation. Appointment
may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who
is to exercise the functions of a given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation,
the appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at
pleasure because of the nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely
the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official.
FACTS:
 Petition for Quo Warranto, wherein Binamira seeks reinstatement as General Manager of
the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA), claiming he was removed without just cause,
violating his security of tenure.
 April 7, 1986: Jose Antonio Gonzales, the Minister of Tourism and Chairman of the PTA
Board, sent to Binamira the following Memorandum:
o “You are hereby designated General Manager of the Philippine Tourism
Authority, effective immediately.”
o (Sgd.) JOSE ANTONIO GONZALES Minister of Tourism and Chairman, P.T.A.
Board
 April 10, 1986: Minister Gonzales wanted to include Binamira as Vice-Chair of the PTA
Board. President Aquino approved of this.
 Binamira claims that since assuming office, he had discharged the duties of PTA General
Manager and Vice-Chairman of its Board and had been acknowledged as such by various
government offices, including the Office of the President.
 January 2, 1990: Garrucho, the new Secretary of Tourism, demanded Binamira’s
resignation.
 January 4, 1990: President Aquino sent Garrucho the following memorandum:
Tourism Authority was designated not by the President, as required by P.D.
No. 564, as amended, but only by the Secretary of Tourism, such
designation is invalid. Accordingly, you are hereby designated concurrently
as General Manager, effective immediately, until I can appoint a person to
serve in the said office in a permanent capacity."
 Garrucho having taken over as General Manager of the PTA in accordance with this
memorandum, the petitioner filed this action against him to question his title.
ISSUES AND RULING:
1. W/N Binamira was validly appointed as General Manager of PTA? NO.
o The petitioner's claim of security of tenure must perforce fall to the ground. His
designation being an unlawful encroachment on a presidential prerogative, he did
not acquire valid title thereunder to the position in question. We must rule therefore
that the petitioner never acquired valid title to the disputed position and so has no
right to be reinstated as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority.
o Section 23-A of P.D. 564 (Creating the PTA) provides: “General Manager-
Appointment and Tenure. — The General Manager shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines and shall serve for a term of six (6) years ….”
o It is not disputed that the petitioner was not appointed by the President of the
Philippines but only designated by the Minister of Tourism. There is a clear
distinction between appointment and designation that the petitioner has failed to
consider. It is said that appointment is essentially executive while designation is
legislative in nature.
 Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority
vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office. When completed, usually with its
confirmation, the appointment results in security of tenure for
the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because
of the nature of his office.
 Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition
by law of additional duties on an incumbent official, as when
three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief
Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House
of Representatives.
o Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise
involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public office. That is the
common understanding of the term. HOWEVER, where the person is merely
designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office only in
a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this
sense, the designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which
does not confer security of tenure on the person named.
 o The argument that the designation made by Minister Gonzales was approved by DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. It is
President Aquino through her approval of the composition of the Board of Directors so ordered.
of the PTA is not persuasive. It must be remembered that Binamira was included
therein as Vice- Chairman only because of his designation as PTA General Manager
by Minister Gonzales.
o The Court sympathizes with the petitioner, who apparently believed in good faith
that he was being extended a permanent appointment by the Minister of Tourism.
After all, Minister Gonzales had the ostensible authority to do so at the time the
designation was made. This belief seemed strengthened when President Aquino
later approved the composition of the PTA Board of Directors where the petitioner
was designated Vice-Chairman because of his position as General Manager of the
PTA. However, such circumstances fall short of the categorical appointment required
to be made by the President herself, and not the Minister of Tourism, under Sec. 23
of P.D. No. 564.
Relevant Obiter Dictum Discussion:
o Even assuming arguendo that Binamira was appointed, petitioner cannot claim
illegal removal. Appointment involves the exercise of discretion, which because of
its nature cannot be delegated. Legally speaking, it was not possible for Minister
Gonzales to assume the exercise of that discretion as an alter ego of the President.
o An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another,
the presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and
competent to exercise that judgment and discretion, and unless the power
to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot
delegate his duties to another.
o And even assuming that the power conferred on the President could be validly
exercised by the Secretary, the act of the latter cannot make irreversible Binamira’s
title to the position.
o Justice Laurel (in Villena v. Sec. of Labor): “[T]he multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and
through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such
departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.”
o The doctrine presumes the acts of the Department Head to be the acts of
the President of the Philippines when "performed and promulgated in the
regular course of business," which was true of the designation made by
Minister Gonzales in favor of the petitioner. But it also adds that such acts
shall be considered valid only if not 'disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive," as also happened in the case at bar (i.e. January 4, 1990
Memorandum).