GR 116183; (October, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116183 October 6, 1995
SEC. RICARDO T. GLORIA, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents were employees of the Philippine Air Force College of Aeronautics (PAFCA), later converted into the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA) by Republic Act No. 7605. They were issued temporary appointments because they lacked the required civil service eligibilities. Private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo specifically received a one-year temporary appointment as Board Secretary II from January 1 to December 31, 1992. On March 24, 1992, she was relieved as Board Secretary due to loss of confidence but was later designated as Coordinator for Extension Services. On December 7, 1992, petitioners informed all private respondents that their services would be deemed terminated upon the expiration of their temporary appointments on December 31, 1992.
Subsequently, private respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus and Reinstatement before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, presided by respondent Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. The trial court granted the petition, ordering the reinstatement of Cerillo to the position of Coordinator for Extension Services with back wages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners, through the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and the PSCA Board of Trustees, filed this certiorari petition to nullify the trial court’s decision and order.
ISSUE
Is private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo entitled to reinstatement via a writ of mandamus to the position of Coordinator for Extension Services after the expiration of her temporary appointment?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the trial court’s decision. The Court ruled that a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the reinstatement of a temporary employee whose appointment has expired by its own terms. A temporary appointment, by its nature, expires at the end of the specified period, and the holder acquires no vested right to the position. The expiration of Cerillo’s appointment on December 31, 1992, resulted in the automatic termination of her employment by operation of law, not by a discretionary removal. Consequently, there was no unlawful dismissal to rectify.
The Court further emphasized that the power of appointment is discretionary. Mandamus can only compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not control the exercise of discretion. Since the PSCA Board of Trustees had no ministerial duty to reappoint or extend Cerillo’s temporary term, mandamus was an improper remedy. The award of attorney’s fees was also disallowed as it lacked factual and legal justification in the body of the trial court’s decision. The expiration of the temporary appointment, coupled with the statutory conversion of PAFCA to PSCA, rendered the claim for reinstatement without legal basis.