G.R. No. 185740, July 23, 2013
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE, represented by GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, vs. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Beatriz O. Gonzales was appointed as the provincial administrator of Camarines Norte on a permanent capacity on April 1, 1991. In 1999, she was administratively charged, found guilty, and dismissed by Governor Jess B. Pimentel. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the penalty to a six-month suspension. After serving the suspension, Gonzales sought reinstatement. Governor Pimentel reinstated her on October 12, 2000, but terminated her services the next day on the ground of lack of confidence, citing the position’s classification as highly confidential and coterminous under the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160). The CSC repeatedly ordered Gonzales’s reinstatement, ruling that as a permanent appointee prior to RA 7160’s effectivity, she acquired a vested right to security of tenure and could not be removed without cause. The petitioner, through Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr., refused to comply. The Court of Appeals upheld the CSC’s orders. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that RA 7160 reclassified the provincial administrator as a primarily confidential, coterminous position, thereby removing Gonzales’s security of tenure.

ISSUE

1. Whether Congress, through RA 7160, reclassified the provincial administrator position from a career service to a primarily confidential, non-career service position.
2. Whether Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as provincial administrator.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals.
1. Yes, Congress reclassified the position. The Court held that RA 7160 substantially altered the nature of the provincial administrator position. Prior to RA 7160, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the position was not mandatory and its creation was a prerogative of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. RA 7160 made the position mandatory for every province, amended its qualifications, and, most significantly, expressly made the position “coterminous with the appointing authority.” This legislative act reclassified the provincial administrator from a career service position (as previously held in Laurel V v. Civil Service Commission) to a primarily confidential, non-career service position. The Court emphasized that the classification of positions is a legislative prerogative, and RA 7160’s clear language effected this change.
2. No, Gonzales does not have security of tenure to the specific position of provincial administrator. The Court ruled that the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure extends only to tenured positions within the career service. Since RA 7160 converted the provincial administrator into a primarily confidential, non-career (coterminous) position, it is not entitled to security of tenure. An occupant of such a position serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The Court further held that Gonzales’s permanent appointment prior to RA 7160 did not create a vested right to the position itself after its nature was validly altered by law. Her right was to the career nature of the position as it existed at the time of her appointment. The subsequent legislative reclassification removed the career character of the office, thereby dissolving the tenure attached to it. Consequently, her dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence was valid. The Court distinguished this from a removal without cause from a career position, which is prohibited. Here, the legal basis for her tenure was removed by a valid law. The Court directed that Gonzales be appointed to a position commensurate with her qualifications in the career service, but not to the now non-career position of Provincial Administrator.