G.R. No. 104216 August 20, 1993
TEODORO B. PANGILINAN, petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Teodoro B. Pangilinan, a civil service eligible, joined government service in 1966. He was appointed Executive Director of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) on July 8, 1987. While serving, he was detailed to another agency and later designated as Resident Ombudsman for the LTO. In this capacity, he discovered irregularities, including in the purchase of non-reflective motor vehicle license plates. After bringing these to the attention of his superiors, who took no action, he held a press conference on September 27, 1991, to expose the “license plate mess” and announced his intent to file graft charges. The next day, Secretary Pete Prado relieved him as Executive Director and replaced him with Guillermo Maglaya as officer-in-charge. Pangilinan continued receiving his salary until December 31, 1991, when he was informed that Maglaya had been designated as Acting Executive Director. Pangilinan filed a petition for reinstatement, arguing his removal was without due process and just cause, and in bad faith following his expose. The respondents contended his separation was valid because he was appointed only in an acting capacity, lacking the required Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility for the permanent position of Executive Director, a CES position. They cited a certification from the CES Board confirming Pangilinan was not a CES eligible or appointee. Pangilinan argued his civil service eligibility and likened his case to others where security of tenure was upheld, and later contended that his replacements also lacked the required CES eligibility.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Teodoro B. Pangilinan was illegally removed from his position as Executive Director of the Land Transportation Office.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held for the respondents. Pangilinan was only an acting appointee because he did not possess the requisite CES eligibility and had not been appointed to a rank in the CES, which are required for a permanent appointment to the position of Executive Director of the LTO, a Career Executive Service position. As an acting appointee, he could not claim security of tenure. The Court distinguished his case from those involving permanent appointees. His separation was not a removal but an expiration of his term, as his right to hold the office was contingent upon the pleasure of the appointing authority due to his lack of permanent status. The Court found the case of Achacoso v. Macaraig applicable, not the cases cited by the petitioner. The subsequent appointment of a qualified individual (Juan A. Magarro, Jr.) was noted. The petition was denied.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Justice Romero, concurring with a separate opinion, expressed concern that the ruling could enable misuse of acting appointments to circumvent security of tenure. He argued the removal was in bad faith, an act of vendetta following Pangilinan’s expose, noting the initial replacements were also ineligible. He voted to grant the petition to annul the dismissal, to uphold constitutional principles of accountability and integrity in public service, and to prevent the use of civil service rules to promote bad government.