G.R. No. 95244 September 4, 1991
Drs. Ellen Ambas, Joanne De Leon, Marie Estella Gunabe, Nerissa Bernal, Ricardo Tolentino and Raul Chrizaldo E. Morena, petitioners, vs. Drs. Brigida Buenaseda and Efren Reyes; The Secretary of Health; Merit Systems Protection Board; and Civil Service Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were resident trainee physicians at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) under temporary appointments renewable annually, not exceeding four years, pursuant to a Residency Program governed by PD 1424. Their contracts stipulated that the NCMH reserved the right to terminate their training for poor performance or ethical violations. Following an evaluation by the Residency Evaluation Committee which found petitioners to have poor academic performance and low ranking, the NCMH Medical Training Officer recommended their termination. The NCMH Chief approved this, and petitioners were notified their services would end on July 1, 1989. Petitioners challenged their termination before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing it was arbitrary and violated civil service laws.
The MSPB initially ruled in favor of petitioners on August 28, 1989, declaring their termination invalid and ordering reinstatement. The Board held that the power to remove resided solely with the appointing authority, the Secretary of Health, and not with the NCMH. However, the Secretary of Health, in an indorsement dated August 17, 1989, which was presented to the Board after its decision, confirmed and affirmed the NCMH’s action terminating petitioners’ services. Upon reconsideration, the MSPB reversed its initial decision on October 25, 1989, upholding the termination based on this confirmation by the appointing authority.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of petitioners from the residency training program was valid.

RULING

Yes, the termination was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the MSPB’s reconsidered resolution. The legal logic proceeds from the distinction between the invalid initial act of removal and its subsequent curative validation. The NCMH, as an implementing agency, lacked the inherent power to terminate the resident trainees; only the Secretary of Health, as the appointing authority, possessed that power. Consequently, the NCMH’s termination notice effective July 1, 1989, was invalid when issued.
However, the Secretary of Health’s indorsement dated August 17, 1989, expressly confirming the termination, constituted a curative act. This affirmation by the proper appointing authority retroactively validated the dismissal, effective from the date of confirmation. The termination was for a just cause—poor academic performance and low evaluation rankings—which was a valid ground under their training contracts and relevant laws. Petitioners, as temporary appointees under a discretionary renewable program, held no vested right to a permanent appointment during the training period. Their claim of denial of due process regarding the motion for reconsideration was dismissed, as they were able to file their opposition before the MSPB resolved it. The Court held the valid removal took effect on August 17, 1989, entitling petitioners to backwages only from July 1 to August 17, 1989.