G.R. No. 138780 EN BANC May 22, 2001
NORBERTO ORCULLO, JR., petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COORDINATING COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Norberto A. Orcullo, Jr. was hired on March 11, 1996, as a contractual Project Manager IV by the Coordinating Council of the Philippine Assistance Program (CCPAP). His appointment was explicitly co-terminous with the PAPS Support Project, scheduled to end on January 30, 2000, and contained the stipulation “Unless terminated sooner.” On September 23, 1996, he received a memorandum terminating his employment effective September 30, 1996, citing his unsatisfactory performance during the probationary period, specifically his inability to work with other staff and participate effectively in meetings, which resulted in a loss of confidence.
Orcullo appealed his dismissal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), arguing that the phrase “unless terminated sooner” referred to the project’s duration, not his employment, and thus his termination without just cause violated his constitutional right to security of tenure. The CSC dismissed his appeal, ruling that his contractual and co-terminous appointment, with its stipulated condition, placed him outside the protection of security of tenure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision, prompting Orcullo to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a contractual and co-terminous government employee, whose appointment carries the stipulation “unless terminated sooner,” is entitled to constitutional security of tenure, requiring termination only for just cause and with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner, as a co-terminous contractual employee, does not enjoy the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The legal logic is anchored on the classification of his position within the Non-Career Service under the Administrative Code. Such service is characterized by entrance not based on merit exams and tenure limited to a specified period, co-terminous with the appointing authority’s pleasure, or limited to a project’s duration.
The Court examined the employment contract and found the phrase “unless terminated sooner” to be clear and unambiguous. It signifies that while the employment was tied to the project’s end date, it could be ended earlier at the employer’s discretion. This stipulation places the appointment under the category of “co-terminous with the appointing authority,” meaning the employee serves at the pleasure and confidence of the appointing power. Consequently, the constitutional right to security of tenure, which applies to career service positions, does not extend to him. The contract itself, containing the termination clause, is the law between the parties.
Furthermore, the Court found that even assuming the termination required cause, it was satisfied in this case. Petitioner received a memorandum citing specific performance issues—unsatisfactory rating and loss of confidence—which constitute valid cause for dismissal of a confidential employee. On due process, the record showed he was notified of his deficiencies and given the opportunity to appeal through the CSC, fulfilling the requirement. Therefore, his dismissal was valid under the terms of his contractual appointment.