G.R. No. 184219; January 30, 2012
SAMUEL B. ONG (Substituted by his heirs: Elizabeth, Samuel Jr., Elizabeth and Carolyn, all surnamed Ong), Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Samuel B. Ong was a career employee of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) since 1978. On September 6, 2001, he was appointed by the President to the position of NBI Director III. His appointment paper stated it was “co-terminus with the appointing authority.” On June 3, 2004, NBI Director Reynaldo Wycoco informed Ong via Memorandum Circular that his co-terminous appointment would end effectively at midnight on June 30, 2004, and he would occupy the position in a hold-over capacity unless a new appointment was issued. On December 1, 2004, the President appointed respondent Victor A. Bessat as NBI Director III, replacing Ong. Consequently, Wycoco notified Ong to cease and desist from performing his functions effective December 17, 2004. Ong received this notice on January 27, 2005. Ong filed a petition for quo warranto before the Court of Appeals, seeking to declare his removal and Bessat’s appointment null and void, and praying for reinstatement and backwages. The CA denied the petition. Ong died during the pendency of his petition for review before the Supreme Court, and his legal heirs were substituted to pursue potential backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for quo warranto and in upholding the validity of Ong’s removal from the position of NBI Director III.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
The Court held that a petition for quo warranto requires the person suing to prove a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Ong’s appointment as NBI Director III was explicitly “co-terminus with the appointing authority.” Citing Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, the Court ruled that such an appointment is co-existent with the tenure of the appointing authority (the President) and held at the President’s pleasure. Consequently, it is temporary in nature. The termination of a temporary or co-terminous appointment does not constitute removal but an expiration of the term of office. As Ong held a temporary, co-terminous appointment, he served at the pleasure of the President and had no security of tenure. His separation from office upon the appointment of his replacement was therefore valid and did not require prior notice or hearing. The Court further ruled that since Ong had no legal right to the office, the lack of CES eligibility of his replacement, respondent Bessat, was immaterial in the quo warranto proceeding. The essence of the ruling is that the office was not unlawfully held by Bessat, as Ong’s right to it had expired.