GR 168267; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168267 February 16, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by its Secretary General, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON, Respondent.
FACTS
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon was appointed in 1999 as Deputy Secretary General of the House of Representatives’ Public Relations and Information Department (PRID). Her appointment paper stated her status as “PERMANENT” but contained an annotation that she “DOES NOT HAVE SECURITY OF TENURE UNTIL [SHE] OBTAINS A C[AREER] E[XECUTIVE] S[ERVICE] ELIGIBILITY.” On July 3, 2001, Secretary General Roberto P. Nazareno approved her detail to the Quezon City Mayor’s Office until July 31, 2001. On July 25, 2001, after Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. assumed office, he issued a Special Order appointing Emmanuel A. Albano to the same position on a temporary status, effective immediately. Respondent was subsequently advised to clear her accountability.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the appointment of Emmanuel A. Albano on July 25, 2001, while Loanzon was on an approved detail, was valid, and consequently, whether Loanzon was lawfully removed from her position.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 02-0224. The Court held that respondent Loanzon’s appointment, despite being labeled “permanent,” was effectively temporary due to the explicit condition that she lacked security of tenure without the required Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility. A temporary appointment is terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and the nature of an appointment is determined by its own terms, not by the classification of the position.
The legal logic centers on the power of the appointing authority. When Speaker de Venecia appointed Albano on July 25, 2001, he validly exercised his prerogative. The prior detail approved by Secretary General Nazareno was subject to the supervision and control of the incoming Speaker. By making a new appointment, Speaker de Venecia impliedly revoked or modified the detail, effectively creating a vacancy. Therefore, Albano’s appointment was not legally infirm for lack of a vacancy. The subsequent approval by the Speaker of an extension of Loanzon’s detail was deemed a mere oversight that could not validate an appointment that had already been lawfully terminated. Consequently, Loanzon’s tenure ended upon Albano’s valid appointment.