CHARRY L. GALIA, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. FELIPE HILAN NAVA, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Galia versus Nava

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Charry L. Galia against Governor Felipe Hilan Nava of the Province of Guimaras and the Civil Service Commission. Galia asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's ruling that her separation from the service was lawful. The case matters because it fixes the rule on co-terminous appointments, particularly positions that are primarily confidential: the holder serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and when trust and confidence is lost, the separation is not a removal but an expiration of the term. It also teaches that the ground of loss of trust and confidence need not be stated in those exact words in the termination letter.

Procedural History

Galia first brought her grievance to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office VI. In its decision dated July 12, 2011, the Regional Office dismissed her appeal and invalidated both her original appointment and her re-appointment. On her motion for reconsideration, the Regional Office partly granted the motion: it declared her appointments in order, but still upheld her termination effective October 15, 2010. Unsatisfied, she appealed to the Civil Service Commission. In Decision No. 12-0382 promulgated on June 27, 2012, the Commission dismissed the appeal and held that her term as Provincial Economic Development Officer was deemed expired effective October 15, 2010 pursuant to the Governor's letter, for loss of trust and confidence. Her motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 12-01551 promulgated on October 2, 2012. She then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On July 1, 2007, Governor Nava appointed Galia in a co-terminous capacity as Provincial Government Department Head, with Salary Grade 26, of the Provincial Economic and Development Office. On July 9, 2007, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan confirmed her appointment through Resolution No. 67. For the years 2007 to 2009, she garnered very high marks on all levels of performance evaluation.

When the Governor won re-election in 2010, Galia was re-appointed. It therefore came as a surprise when, on October 12, 2010, the Governor issued a termination letter citing unsatisfactory performance in her previous years of service. She asked for reconsideration, but was denied.

The Governor's letter enumerated the reasons: administrative and personnel problems in her office, projects not performing to par, little progress in cooperative strengthening and development, hardly any initiative in labor and employment generation, and delays in project implementation. The letter concluded that a change in stewardship in her office had to be initiated, and terminated her services effective Friday, October 15, 2010, in accordance with the terms and conditions of her co-terminous appointment.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner served merely at the pleasure of the Governor, given that the original ground for termination was unsatisfactory performance and not lack of confidence.
• Whether or not the termination letter, which cited unsatisfactory performance, sufficiently conveyed loss of trust and confidence as the ground for separating the petitioner from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

Sec. 14. An appointment may also be co-terminous which shall be issued to a person whose entrance and continuity in the service is based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority or that which is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his tenure, or limited by the duration of project or subject to the availability of funds.

This is the provision the Court uses to classify Galia's appointment and to measure the Governor's power over it.

The same Section 14 further classifies co-terminous status:

The co-terminous status may be further classified into the following: (1) co-terminous with the project - when the appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made or subject to the availability of funds for the same; (2) co-terminous with the appointing authority - when appointment is co-existent with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure; (3) co-terminous with the incumbent - when the appointment is co-existent with the appointee, in that after the resignation, separation or termination of the services of the incumbent the position shall be deemed automatically abolished; and (4) co-terminous with a specific period - appointment is for a specific period and upon expiration thereof, the position is deemed abolished.

The second classification, co-terminous with the appointing authority, is the one that anchors the ruling that her continuity in the service was subject to the Governor's pleasure.

Ruling

The petition is not meritorious. On the first issue, the Court begins from the settled rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by appellate courts, because these agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. Such findings bind the Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. The Court finds no such showing here.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the petitioner's stance is futile. The tenor of the letter speaks for itself: it depicts a superior whose trust and confidence in a subordinate has been diminished because of the latter's dismal performance. The letter enumerates the reasons for the termination, and these clearly equate to loss of trust and confidence. The Court quotes the letter's own language:

I have also decided that a change in stewardship in your office will have to be initiated, to effect a positive change in the personnel attitude and zeal towards delivering results that we so direly need. A more dedicated and focussed captain is needed to steer your office back to its course, and perform its role in a bigger and well organized system.

Given that her employment was in a co-terminous capacity and the position she occupied was primarily confidential in nature, her termination due to loss of trust and confidence was clearly within the bounds of the Governor's power and prerogative. Her continued employment depended upon the pleasure of her appointing authority. By the very nature of her appointment, she knew from the start that she served at the pleasure of the Governor, and when that confidence is lost, the expiration of her term becomes an inevitable reality. The Court cites Cadiente versus Santos:

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus their cessation involves no removal. When such confidence is lost and the officer holding such position is separated from the service, such cessation entails no removal but an expiration of his term.

The Court also approves the reasoning of the Commission: the loss of trust and confidence as a ground for terminating a confidential employee need not be categorically stated in a letter or notice of termination, and positions primarily confidential in nature are excluded from the merit system, so dismissal at the pleasure of the appointing authority is allowed and is not considered a dismissal from service but an expiration of the term of office.

Doctrine

• A co-terminous appointment is one whose entrance and continuity in the service is based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority, or is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his tenure, or limited by the duration of a project or subject to the availability of funds.
• For a position that is co-terminous with the appointing authority and primarily confidential in nature, the tenure of the holder ends upon loss of confidence; the separation is not a removal but an expiration of the term.
• The ground of loss of trust and confidence need not be categorically stated in the letter or notice of termination; it may be gathered from the tenor of the letter, such as where it cites unsatisfactory performance and the need for a change in stewardship.
• Factual findings of administrative agencies supported by substantial evidence are binding on the Court absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Civil Service Commission's decision and resolution were affirmed; Galia lost, and her separation stood as an expiration of her term.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the tenure of a primarily confidential official holding a co-terminous appointment ends upon loss of confidence, and such cessation involves no removal but an expiration of the term. Examiners use this case to test whether loss of trust and confidence must be expressly stated in the termination letter, and to test the classification of co-terminous appointments under Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules.