GR 160502; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160502; April 27, 2007
Tanjay Water District, Carmelito A. Limbaga, Nenita R. Pilas, Adelina Q. Limbaga, Godofredo R. Borromeo and Richard Regalado, Petitioners, vs. Cesar A. Quinit, Jr., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cesar A. Quinit, Jr. was appointed as General Manager of Tanjay Water District (TWD) in 1987, with his appointment later attested as permanent by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in 1993. In 1996, due to management disagreements, Quinit wrote a letter to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) requesting the replacement of the TWD Board, alleging various irregularities and referring to the Board members as “dogs.” Consequently, the TWD Board passed Resolution No. 49, terminating Quinit’s services effective September 1, 1996, citing loss of trust and confidence. Quinit filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the CSC, arguing his permanent appointment conferred security of tenure. The CSC upheld the termination, ruling the General Manager serves at the pleasure of the Board under Section 23 of P.D. No. 198, as amended. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CSC, declaring the termination illegal and ordering Quinit’s reinstatement with back wages.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of respondent Quinit as General Manager of TWD was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the termination was illegal but deleted the award of back wages. The Court held that while Section 23 of P.D. No. 198, as amended, stated the General Manager “shall serve at the pleasure of the Board,” this provision must be reconciled with the constitutional principle of security of tenure. A permanent appointment, once attested by the CSC, grants the appointee a property right to the position. The “pleasure” doctrine does not grant the Board unbridled discretion to dismiss without cause. The position of General Manager is not primarily confidential; it is a career position requiring technical competence. Therefore, Quinit could only be removed for a valid cause and with due process. The Board’s act of terminating him based solely on loss of confidence, without establishing a specific charge or conducting a proper investigation, violated his right to due process and security of tenure. However, since the termination stemmed from a bona fide interpretation of the law, back wages were not warranted.