120 Gloria v.

De Guzman
G.R. No. 116183 (1995)
J. HERMOSISIMA, JR. / Tita K
Subject Matter: law on public officers; personnel actions; reinstatement
Summary: Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA) Board of Trustees issued Resolution No. 91-026 declaring
that "All faculty/administrative employees are also subject to the required civil service eligibilities". Thus, private
respondents, employees of PAFCA, were issued only temporary appointments because they lacked appropriate civil
service eligibilities. Cerillo, specifically, was issued a one-year temporary appointment as Board Secretary II (until
December 31, 1992). On March 24, 1992, she was relieved as Board Secretary by reason of loss of confidence, but was
designated as "Coordinator for Extension Services". Col. Loleng 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 and Reinstatement. Respondent Judge ordered the
reinstatement of Cerilla to the position of “Coordinator for extension services”. SC set aside order because Cerilla,
although temporarily extended an appointment as Board Secretary II, was dismissed due to loss of confidence. She was
merely a designee, thus did not acquire any right to the position. She could also not be reinstated as “Coordinator for
Extension Services” because the position is not provided for in the PSCA plantilla.

Doctrines:
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.
Thus the questioned order of reinstatement amounts to an undue interference by the Court in the exercise of
the discretionary power of appointment vested in the PSCA Board of Trustees.
Parties:
SEC. RICARDO T. GLORIA, in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture & Sports and Chairman of
Petitioner the Board of Trustees of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA); JULIAN J. LOLENG, JR., in
his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of PSCA; and BOARD OF TRUSTEES of PSCA
HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 113, Regional Trial Court of Pasay,
Metro Manila; VIRGILIO R. RAMOS, LEONY P. SENDIN, ROSARIO V. CERILLO, ANDREA A. PESTANO,
Respondent ARTHUR V. RODRIGUEZA, LENI V. DIMAYUGA, JAIME AEON, RIZALDO O. VALLE, JOIE ARCEO, SHIRLEY
PESTANO, SERVANDO SACUEZA, JAIME C. PONEGAL, EDGARDO MERCADO, CRISTINA BULADO,
BENIGNO T. AQUINO, RODEL PESTANO, JUN JAY PARMA, NILO B. ELLO, and NELSON SACUEZA
Facts:
 Private respondents were employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA) which was created
by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1078 (PD 1078). Under PD 1078, the Board of Trustees (BOT) is vested with
authority to appoint officials and employees of PAFCA.
 In line with this authority, the PAFCA BOT issued Resolution No. 91-026 which declared that “All faculty/
administrative employees are also subject to the required civil service eligibilities,” in accordance with pertinent
civil service law, rules and regulations.
  Thus, herein private respondents were issued only temporary appointments because at the time of their
appointment, they lacked appropriate civil service eligibilities or failed to meet the necessary qualification
standards for their respective positions.
 Specifically, respondent Cerillo was issued a one-year temporary appointment to the position of Board Secretary
II of PAFCA from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992.
 However, on March 24, 1992, respondent Cerillo was relieved as Board Secretary of by reason of loss of
confidence.
 Subsequently, however, respondent Cerillo was designated as “Coordinator for Extension Services.”
 On June 3, 1992, RA 7605 was enacted, converting PAFCA into a state college to be known as the Philippine State
College of Aeronautics (PSCA). The BOT likewise was the governing body of the PSCA, and it retained its power to
make appointments. Petitioner Col. Loleng remained as Officer-in-Charge.
 On December 7, 1992 private respondents were informed by Col. Loleng that they shall be deemed separated
from the service upon the expiration of their temporary appointments.
RTC
 After the lapse of their appointments, private respondents filed a petition for mandamus and reinstatement, with
back wages and damages, praying that then DECS Secretary Fabella to order the BOT to reinstate the respondents
to their respective positions.
 Petitioners opposed the petition on the ground that reappointment is discretionary on the part of the appointing
power, and cannot be compelled by mandamus to reinstate them.
 Respondent Judge de Guzman ordered the reinstatement of Cerillo to the position of "Coordinator for Extension
Services" and awarded attorney's fees and costs of litigation.
Issue/s:
1. WON respondent Cerillo is entitled to reinstatement to the position of “Coordinator for Extension Services”. - NO
2. WON respondent Cerillo is entitled to reinstatement to the position of Board Secretary II - NO
Ratio:
1. NO – Cerillo is not entitled to reinstatement to the position of “Coordinator for Extension Services”.
Judge de Guzman’s order of Cerillo’s reinstatement to the position of “Coordinator for Extension Services” 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. Her dismissal as Board Secretary II could not have been the subject of
the petition for mandamus and reinstatement filed before respondent Judge.
 Respondent Cerillo’s assignment as “Coordinator for Extension Services” was a mere designation. As a mere
designee, she could not have acquired any right (i.e security of tenure) to the position. Not being a permanent
appointment, the designation to the position cannot be the subject of a case for reinstatement.
 Furthermore, even granting that she could be validly reinstated as “Coordinator for Extension Services,” her
reinstatement 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.
2. NO - Cerillo is not entitled to reinstatement to the position of Board Secretary II.
Reinstatement to the position of Board Secretary II is impermissible.
 Respondent Cerillo had already been dismissed from this position for loss of confidence. She did not contest this
dismissal possibly because the position of Board Secretary II is primarily confidential. She accepted the dismissal
 without any ripple and when designated as Coordinator for Extension Services, she indicated acceptance by
performing the acts called for by the designation.
 The fact that respondent 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. 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. The PSCA Board Resolution No. 91-0261 must yield to the Civil Service
Commission policies on the issuance of temporary appointments.
 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.
o Thus the questioned order of reinstatement amounts to an undue interference by the Court in the
exercise of the discretionary power of appointment vested in the PSCA Board of Trustees.

Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision, dated January 31, 1994, insofar as it ordered the
reinstatement of Ms. Rosario V. Cerillo and the payment to the latter of back wages and attorney’s fees, and the Order,
dated June 29, 1994, of respondent Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. are hereby declared null and void and ordered set
aside. The temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby made permanent.

1 In this resolution, the Board of Trustees declared that all faculty/administrative employees of the college, while required to acquire civil service
eligibilities under pertinent civil service law, rules and regulations, must exert effort to acquire civil service eligibilities within a period of three years
from their temporary appointments.