Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 523 views

    Achacoso Vs Macaraig.

    Uploaded by

    Lean Falcutila
    Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration but later filed a courtesy resignation at the request of the President. When he was replaced as Administrator and asked to vacate his office, he protested claiming protection under security of tenure as a career civil servant. The Supreme Court ruled against Achacoso, finding that a permanent appointment requiring security of tenure can only be issued to a person meeting all qualifications for the position. As Achacoso did not have the requisite qualifications, he could only have been appointed in an acting capacity, meaning his term expired when he was replaced, not removed. Expiration of term does not violate constitutional protection of security of tenure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Achacoso Vs Macaraig.

    Uploaded by

    Lean Falcutila
    523 views1 page
    Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration but later filed a courtesy resignation at the request of the President. When he was replaced as Administrator and asked to vacate his office, he protested claiming protection under security of tenure as a career civil servant. The Supreme Court ruled against Achacoso, finding that a permanent appointment requiring security of tenure can only be issued to a person meeting all qualifications for the position. As Achacoso did not have the requisite qualifications, he could only have been appointed in an acting capacity, meaning his term expired when he was replaced, not removed. Expiration of term does not violate constitutional protection of security of tenure.

    Original Description:

    acahacoso vs macaraig sfafgdf

    Original Title

    Achacoso vs Macaraig.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration but later filed a courtesy resignation at the request of the President. When he was replaced as Administrator and asked to vacate his office, he protested claiming protection under security of tenure as a career civil servant. The Supreme Court ruled against Achacoso, finding that a permanent appointment requiring security of tenure can only be issued to a person meeting all qualifications for the position. As Achacoso did not have the requisite qualifications, he could only have been appointed in an acting capacity, meaning his term expired when he was replaced, not removed. Expiration of term does not violate constitutional protection of security of tenure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    523 views1 page

    Achacoso Vs Macaraig.

    Uploaded by

    Lean Falcutila
    Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration but later filed a courtesy resignation at the request of the President. When he was replaced as Administrator and asked to vacate his office, he protested claiming protection under security of tenure as a career civil servant. The Supreme Court ruled against Achacoso, finding that a permanent appointment requiring security of tenure can only be issued to a person meeting all qualifications for the position. As Achacoso did not have the requisite qualifications, he could only have been appointed in an acting capacity, meaning his term expired when he was replaced, not removed. Expiration of term does not violate constitutional protection of security of tenure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TOMAS D. ACHACOSO vs CATALINO MACARAIG and RUBEN D.

    TORRES
    [G.R. No. 93023. March 13, 1991.]
    FACTS:
    Tomas D. Achacoso was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
    Administration. In compliance with a request addressed by the President of the Philippines to all
    Department Heads, Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Heads, and other government
    officials, he filed a courtesy resignation. This was accepted by the President, with deep regrets. The
    Secretary of Labor requested him to turn over his office to the Deputy Administrator as officer-in-charge.
    he protested his replacement and declared he was not surrendering his office because his resignation
    was not voluntary but filed only in obedience to the Presidents directive. On the same date, respondent
    Jose N. Sarmiento was appointed Administrator of the POEA, vice the petitioner. Achacoso was informed
    thereof the following day and was again asked to vacate his office. He filed a motion for reconsideration
    but this was denied. He then came to this Court for relief.
    The petitioner invokes security of tenure against his claimed removal without legal cause. Achacoso
    contends that he is a member of the Career Service of the Civil Service and so enjoys security of tenure,
    which is one of the characteristics of the Career Service as distinguished from the Non-Career Service. 1
    Claiming to have the rank of undersecretary, he says he comes under Article IV, Section 5 of P.D. 807,
    otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree, which includes in the Career Service
    ISSUE: WON Achacoso is protected by the security of tenure
    HELD: NO.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; SECURITY OF TENURE; PERMANENT APPOINTMENT
    ISSUED ONLY TO PERSONS QUALIFIED. A permanent appointment can be issued only to a person
    who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate
    eligibility
    prescribed.
    The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security of
    tenure on its occupant even if he does not possess the required qualifications.
    PERSONS APPOINTED WITHOUT THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION DEEMED IN ACTING CAPACITY.
    The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security of
    tenure on its occupant even if he does not possess the required qualifications. Such right will have to
    depend on the nature of his appointment, which in turn depends on his eligibility or lack of it. A person
    who does not have the requisite qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place
    or, only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of
    appropriate eligible.
    TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT; PURPOSE. The purpose of an acting or temporary appointment is to
    prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official functions by authorizing a person to discharge the same
    pending the selection of a permanent or another appointee.
    EXPIRATION OF TERM; METHOD OF TERMINATING TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT. In these
    circumstances, the acting appointee is separated by a method of terminating official relations known in
    the law of public officers as expiration of the term. His term is understood at the outset as without any
    fixity and enduring at the pleasure of the appointing authority. When required to relinquish his office, he
    cannot complain that he is being removed in violation of his security of tenure because removal imports
    the separation of the incumbent before the expiration of his term. This is allowed by the Constitution only
    when it is for cause as provided by law. The acting appointee is separated precisely because his term has
    expired. Expiration of the term is not covered by the constitutional provision on security of tenure.

    You might also like