G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995
ALFREDO B. FELIX, petitioner, vs. DR. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA, in her capacity as Director, and ISABELO BAÑEZ, JR., in his capacity as Administrator, both of the National Center for Mental Health, and the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Alfredo B. Felix was a Medical Specialist I at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH). His initial removal in 1988 was part of a general reorganization under Executive Order No. 119, after which he was re-appointed in a temporary capacity. He was later promoted to Medical Specialist I, also with temporary status. The Department of Health (DOH) subsequently issued Department Order No. 347, requiring board certification for the renewal of specialist positions to upgrade medical standards. Petitioner lacked this certification. Under a subsequent order (D.O. No. 478), extensions for non-certified specialists were possible but discretionary, requiring justification by hospital chiefs to prevent service disruption. The NCMH Medical Credentials Committee, after review, recommended non-renewal of petitioner’s appointment, citing his poor performance, frequent tardiness, and inflexibility, a decision supported by his immediate supervisor and other department heads.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of petitioner’s temporary appointment as Medical Specialist I was illegal and violated his security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the termination was valid and did not violate security of tenure. The legal logic is twofold. First, the petitioner held a temporary appointment. Security of tenure guarantees protection only to employees with permanent appointments; a temporary appointee can be removed at any time, with or without cause, provided it is not done arbitrarily or in bad faith. Second, the non-renewal was justified by a valid regulatory purpose and a factual assessment of his performance. The DOH orders requiring board certification were a legitimate exercise of administrative authority to upgrade medical specialty services. The NCMH committee’s decision was based on petitioner’s failure to meet this standard and his documented poor work performance. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings on invalid reorganizations, noting that here, the non-renewal was not a punitive removal but a permissible termination of a temporary appointment based on objective criteria and a bona fide evaluation. The Civil Service Commission correctly found the action to be within the discretion of the appointing authority.