G.R. No. 93023, March 13, 1991
Tomas D. Achacoso, petitioner, vs. Catalino Macaraig and Ruben D. Torres, in their capacities as Executive Secretary and Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), respectively; and Jose N. Sarmiento, respondents.

FACTS

Tomas D. Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on October 16, 1987. In January 1990, in compliance with a directive from the President, he submitted a courtesy resignation. This resignation was accepted by the President on April 3, 1990. Subsequently, on April 19, 1990, Jose N. Sarmiento was appointed as the new POEA Administrator. Achacoso protested, arguing his resignation was not voluntary but filed under duress, and refused to vacate his office.
Achacoso filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, seeking to annul Sarmiento’s appointment and to be reinstated. He contended that the position of POEA Administrator is a Career Executive Service (CES) position with the rank of Undersecretary, granting him security of tenure. He argued that his removal via a coerced courtesy resignation was illegal, leaving no valid vacancy for Sarmiento’s appointment.

ISSUE

Whether or not Tomas D. Achacoso, as Administrator of the POEA, enjoyed security of tenure such that his removal from office was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Achacoso did not enjoy security of tenure. The Court clarified that while the position of POEA Administrator belongs to the Career Service, the incumbent must possess the requisite qualifications to be entitled to the protection of security of tenure. The Civil Service Commission certified that Achacoso was not a CES eligible and had not been appointed to a rank in the CES.
The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the nature of the position and the qualifications of the appointee. Under the governing laws, specifically the Integrated Reorganization Plan, appointment to a CES position like the POEA Administrator must ideally be made from a list of CES eligibles. The President may, in exceptional cases, appoint a non-eligible, but such an appointment is only temporary. The appointee must subsequently take the required CES examination, and permanency is contingent upon obtaining eligibility. Since Achacoso was appointed without the required CES eligibility and never obtained it, his appointment could only be considered temporary.
A temporary appointee does not enjoy security of tenure. Established jurisprudence holds that a temporary appointment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority without the need to establish cause. Consequently, the President had the prerogative to replace Achacoso at any time. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to rule on the legality or voluntariness of the courtesy resignation, as his separation was justified by the temporary nature of his appointment. His replacement by Sarmiento was valid.