The Court is categorical in the Amores case that an appointee without the requisite CES eligibility cannot hold the position in a permanent capacity. Temporary appointments are made if only to prevent hiatus in the government's rendition of public service. However, a temporary appointee can be removed even without cause and at a moment's notice. As to those with eligibilities, their rights to security of tenure pertain to ranks but not to the positions to which they were appointed.
Ong never alleged that at any time during which he held the Director III position, he had acquired the requisite eligibility. Thus, the right to
security of tenure did not pertain to him at least relative to the Director III position.
The next logical query to be resolved then is whether or not Ong, as an appointee holding a position “co-terminus with the appointing authority,” was entitled to remain as Director III until the end of the President's tenure on June 30, 2010.
We likewise rule in the negative.
Both Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code and Section 14 (2) of Rule V, CSC Resolution No. 91-1631 define a co-terminous appointment as one co-existent with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure.
In Mita Pardo de Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.[40] cited by the CA in its decision, we sustained the replacement of an incumbent, who held an appointment at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Such appointment was in essence temporary in nature. We categorized the incumbent's replacement not as removal but rather as an expiration of term and no prior notice, due hearing or cause were necessary to effect the same. In Decano v. Edu,[41] we ruled that the acceptance of a
temporary appointment divests an appointee of the right to security of tenure against removal without cause. Further, in Carillo vs. CA,[42] we stated that “one who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority, there being no need to show that the termination is for cause.”
In Ong's case, his appointment was temporary and co-terminous. The doctrines enunciated in the cases of Mita Pardo de Tavera, Decano, and Carillo apply. Hence, no legal challenge can be properly posed against the President's appointment of Bessat as Ong's replacement. The CA correctly ruled that in quo warranto proceedings, the petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another and in the absence of the said right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial. Stated differently, where a non-eligible holds a temporary appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not prohibited.[43]
