THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES, RESPONDENT.

Provincial Government of Camarines Norte versus Gonzales

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Provincial Government of Camarines Norte, represented by Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Junior, against Beatriz O. Gonzales, whom it had refused to reinstate as provincial administrator. The Province asks the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the Civil Service Commission and ordered Gonzales reinstated to the position of provincial administrator or to an equivalent one. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between two ideas that are easily confused: the nature of a public office, which Congress may change at will, and the right of a person to hold that office, which rises or falls with the nature of the office itself.

Procedural History

Gonzales was dismissed from the service by Governor Jess B. Pimentel. She appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which modified the dismissal and imposed instead a six-month suspension. When she moved for execution and clarification, the Commission directed her reinstatement. Governor Pimentel reinstated her on October 12, 2000, and terminated her the very next day for lack of confidence. The Commission again directed her reinstatement, clarifying that her prior permanent appointment gave her a vested right to the office. When the incumbent governor, Jesus O. Typoco, Junior, refused to comply, the Commission issued a further resolution ordering her reinstatement as provincial administrator or to an equivalent position.

The Province then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the Commission's resolutions. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission, holding that Gonzales had acquired a legal right to her position upon a completed appointment, that this right is protected by statute and the Constitution, that lack of confidence is not among the grounds for removal under the Administrative Code, and that her termination without hearing violated due process. The Province moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied. The Province then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Gonzales was appointed provincial administrator of the Province of Camarines Norte on April 1, 1991, by then Governor Roy A. Padilla, Junior. Her appointment was on a permanent capacity. At that time, the old Local Government Code, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, did not even list the provincial administrator among the mandatory provincial officials; the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was merely empowered to create such offices as might be necessary.

On March 8, 1999, Governor Pimentel directed Gonzales to explain why she should not be charged with gross insubordination, gross discourtesy, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. An ad hoc investigation committee found her guilty, and the governor dismissed her. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission modified the decision, finding her guilty only of insubordination and suspending her for six months. After she claimed to have served the suspension and asked for reinstatement, the Commission directed her reinstatement.

Governor Pimentel reinstated her on October 12, 2000, but terminated her services the next day for lack of confidence, writing to the Commission that the provincial administrator position is highly confidential and coterminous. The Commission again ordered her reinstatement, and when Governor Typoco refused, it reiterated the order. The Province challenged these resolutions before the Court of Appeals, which ruled for Gonzales, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not Congress has reclassified the provincial administrator position from a career service position to a primarily confidential, non-career service position.
• Whether or not Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as provincial administrator of the Province of Camarines Norte.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 807, which the earlier Laurel case used to place the provincial administrator in the career service, provides:

Section 7. Classes of Positions in the Career Service. (a) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows: x x x x 2. The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions which involve professional, technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief level.

This is the classification the Court now revisits, because the new Local Government Code changed the office itself.

Section 480(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 defines the duties of the provincial administrator, and the Court quotes it to show how closely the office is tied to the governor:

(b) The administrator shall take charge of the office of the administrator and shall: (1) Develop plans and strategies and upon approval thereof by the governor or mayor, as the case may be, implement the same particularly those which have to do with the management and administration-related programs and projects which the governor or mayor is empowered to implement and which the sanggunian is empowered to provide for under this Code; (2) In addition to the foregoing duties and functions, the administrator shall: (i) Assist in the coordination of the work of all the officials of the local government unit, under the supervision, direction, and control of the governor or mayor, and for this purpose, he may convene the chiefs of offices and other officials of the local government unit; x x x x (4) Recommend to the sanggunian and advise the governor and mayor, as the case may be, on all other matters relative to the management and administration of the local government unit.

These duties require constant interaction with the governor and demand that the occupant enjoy the governor's full trust and confidence.

Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 states one of the Code's operative principles:

(b) There shall be established in every local government unit an accountable, efficient, and dynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs and service requirements of its communities.

This shows that the reclassification was a reform measure aimed at the office, not at any incumbent.

Paragraph 8, Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 503, invoked for Gonzales, provides:

8. Incumbents of positions, namely administrator, legal officer, and information officer declared by the Code as coterminous, who hold permanent appointments, shall continue to enjoy their permanent status until they vacate their positions.

The Court finds this safeguard inapplicable because the Executive Order governs national personnel whose functions are devolved to local governments, not local officials like the provincial administrator.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Congress has indeed reclassified the provincial administrator position as a primarily confidential, non-career service position. It noted three substantial changes wrought by Republic Act No. 7160: the position was made mandatory in every province, whereas before its creation was a prerogative of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; the qualifications were amended, shortening the six-year work experience requirement to five years and adding residence and good moral character requirements; and the position was made coterminous with the appointing authority. Read with Section 480(b), which mandates constant interaction between the administrator and the governor, these changes reveal the intent of Congress to place the office in the primarily confidential, non-career service.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that Gonzales has no security of tenure. It distinguished the nature of a position, which may change by law, from the right to hold a position, which changes with the nature of the office. The legislative power to create public offices carries with it the power to abolish and modify them, and modifications made in good faith, aimed at the office and not at the incumbent, do not violate security of tenure. The Court cited its earlier rulings in Salcedo and Ignacio versus Carpio and Carreon, and in Dimayuga versus Benedicto the Second, where incumbents lost their positions after Congress or the Commission altered the offices they held. It held that what matters is the nature of the position at the time of removal, not the nature of the appointment when the officer entered service. It also rejected the reliance on Executive Order No. 503, whose title and whereas clauses confine it to national government personnel whose functions are devolved to local governments.

The Court added that there is no vested right in public office, quoting itself:

Moreover, it is a basic tenet in the country's constitutional system that "public office is a public trust," and that there is no vested right in public office, nor an absolute right to hold office. No proprietary title attaches to a public office, as public service is not a property right. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office. The rule is that offices in government, except those created by the constitution, may be abolished, altered, or created anytime by statute. And any issues on the classification for a position in government may be brought to and determined by the courts.

Doctrine

First, the power to create a public office includes the power to abolish or modify it, and Congress may change its qualifications, shorten its term, or alter its classification. Second, such modifications, when made in good faith and aimed at the office rather than the incumbent, do not violate security of tenure. Third, the right to hold a position is measured by the nature of the position at the time of removal, not by the nature of the appointment at the time of entry. Fourth, there is no vested right in public office, public office being a public trust. Fifth, the provincial administrator is a primarily confidential, non-career service position under Republic Act No. 7160, and the safeguards of Executive Order No. 503 do not extend to local government officials.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the Civil Service Commission resolutions ordering Gonzales' reinstatement were annulled.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the nature of the position may change by law, but the right to hold it changes with the nature of the position. Examiners use this case to test security of tenure, the classification of the provincial administrator, and the distinction between a modification aimed at the office and one aimed at the incumbent.