De-Castro-v-Carlos Case Digest

De Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No.
194994, [April 16, 2013] Executive Director Maria Anthonette Allones (Executive Director Allones),
CESO I, stated that the position of AGMO had not yet been classified and
could not be considered as belonging to the Career Executive Service (CES).
FACTS: On 29 July 2009, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo She further stated that a perusal of the appointment papers of petitioner
appointed petitioner as AGMO(Assistant General Manager for Operation). showed that he was not holding a coterminous position. In sum, she said, he
His appointment was concurred in by the members of the Metro Manila was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.
Council in MMDA Resolution No. 09-10, Series of 2009. He took his oath
on 17 August 2009 before then Chairperson Bayani F. Fernando.
Petitioner was later offered the position of Director IV of MMDA Public
Health and Safety Services and/or MMDA consultant. He turned down the
Meanwhile, on 29 July 2010, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued offer, claiming that it was a demotion in rank.
Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 2010,
amending OPMemorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2010.
Demanding payment of his salary and reinstatement in the monthly payroll,
petitioner sent a letter on 5 December 2010 to Edenison Faisan, assistant
OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 states: general manager (AGM) for Finance and Administration; and Lydia
Domingo, Director III, Administrative Services. For his failure to obtain an
2. All non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESO) occupying Career action or a response from MMDA, he then made a formal demand for his
Executive Service (CES) positions in all agencies of the executive branch reinstatement as AGMO through a letter addressed to the Office of the
shall remain in office and continue to perform their duties and discharge their President on 17 December 2010.
responsibility until October 31, 2010 or until their resignations have been
accepted and/or until their respective replacements have been appointed or However, on 4 January 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III (President
designated, whichever comes first, unless they are reappointed in the Aquino) appointed respondent as the new AGMO of the MMDA. On 10
meantime. January 2011, the latter took his oath of office.
On 30 July 2010, Atty. Francis N. Tolentino, chairperson of the MMDA, ISSUE:

issued Office Order No. 106, designating Corazon B. Cruz as officer-in-
charge (OIC) of the Office of the AGMO. Petitioner was then reassigned to
the Legal and Legislative Affairs Office, Office of the General Manager. The A.) WON the filing of petition directly to the supreme court is proper.
service vehicle and the office space previously assigned to him were
withdrawn and assigned to other employees.
B.) WON the petitioner has the security of tenure with his previous position.
Subsequently, on 2 November 2010, Chairperson Tolentino designated

respondent as OIC of the Office of the AGMO by virtue of Memorandum HELD:
Order No. 24, which in turn cited OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 as basis.
Thereafter, the name of petitioner was stricken off the MMDA payroll, and
A.) NO. A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when
he was no longer paid his salary beginning November 2010.
there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set
forth in a petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity
Petitioner sought a clarification from the Career Executive Service Board of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the
(CESB) as to the proper classification of the position of AGMO. In her reply, Court, which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of the Court’s docket.
In this case, petitioner justified his act of directly filing with this Court only supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college
when he filed his Reply and after respondent had already raised the work up to Division Chief levels; and DTEcSa
procedural infirmity that may cause the outright dismissal of the present
Petition. Petitioner likewise cites stability in the civil service and protection
of the rights of civil servants as rationale for disregarding the hierarchy of (c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service.
courts. TIaEDC (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s excuses are not special and important circumstances that would Entrance to different levels requires corresponding civil service eligibilities.
allow a direct recourse to this Court. More so, mere speculation and doubt to Those at the third level (CES positions) require career service executive
the exercise of judicial discretion of the lower courts are not and cannot be eligibility (CSEE) as a requirement for permanent appointment.
valid justifications to hurdle the hierarchy of courts. Thus, the Petition must
be dismissed. Evidently, an AGMO should possess all the qualifications required by third-
level career service within the CES. In this case, petitioner does not have the
B.) NO. An AGMO performs functions that are managerial in character; required eligibility. Therefore, we find that his appointment to the position of
exercises management over people, resource, and/or policy; and assumes AGMO was merely temporary.
functions like planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and
overseeing the activities of MMDA. The position requires the application of Therefore, considering that petitioner is an appointee of then President
managerial or supervisory skills necessary to carry out duties and Arroyo whose term ended on 30 June 2010, petitioner’s term of office was
responsibilities involving functional guidance, leadership, and supervision. also deemed terminated upon the assumption of President Aquino.
For the foregoing reasons, the position of AGMO is within the coverage of Likewise, it is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by
the CES. another non-CESO eligible. In a quo warranto proceeding, the person suing
must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by
In relation thereto, positions in the career service, for which appointments another. Absent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility
require examinations, are grouped into three major levels: of the supposed usurper is immaterial.
Sec. 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service. — (1) Classes of positions

in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be
grouped into three major levels as follows:
(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and custodial service
positions which involve non-professional or sub-professional work in a non-
supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of
collegiate studies;
(b) The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific
positions which involve professional, technical or scientific work in a non-

De-Castro-v-Carlos Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De-Castro-v-Carlos Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De-Castro-v-Carlos Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No.

On 30 July 2010, Atty. Francis N. Tolentino, chairperson of the MMDA, ISSUE:

Subsequently, on 2 November 2010, Chairperson Tolentino designated

Sec. 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service. — (1) Classes of positions

You might also like