G.R. No. 194994. April 16, 2013.

* managerial in character; exercises management over people, resource, and/or

EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. EMERSON S. policy; and assumes functions like planning, organizing, directing,
CARLOS, respondent. coordinating, controlling, and overseeing the activities of MMDA. The
position requires the application of managerial or supervisory skills necessary
to carry out duties and responsibilities involving functional guidance,
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Hierarchy of Courts; Settled
leadership, and supervision. For the foregoing reasons, the position of AGMO
is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so
is within the coverage of the CES.
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
Same; Same; Positions in the career service, for which appointments
fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.” A disregard of the doctrine
require examinations, are grouped into three major levels.—Positions in the
of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.
career service, for which appointments require examinations, are grouped
A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when
into three major levels: Sec. 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service.—
there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set
(1) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires
forth in a petition.—Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987
examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows: (a) The first
Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original
level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and custodial service positions which
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
involve non-professional or sub-professional work in a non-supervisory or
warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive
supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies; (b)
but is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court and
The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions
does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The
which involve professional, technical or scientific work in a non-supervisory
hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed. Settled is the rule that “the
or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to
Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to
Division Chief levels; and (c) The third level shall cover positions in the
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter
Career Executive Service. Entrance to different levels requires
and immemorial tradition.” A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
corresponding civil service eligibilities. Those at the third level (CES
warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. A direct invocation of
positions) require career service executive eligibility (CSEE) as a requirement
this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important
for permanent appointment.
reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition. The rationale
Remedial Law;  Special Civil Actions; Quo Warranto; In a quo
behind this policy arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate
warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that he has a clear right to
demands upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to
the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of that
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of
right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is
the Court’s docket.
immaterial.—It is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by
Same; Special Civil Actions; Quo Warranto; Words and Phrases; A
another non-CESO eligible. In a quo warranto  proceeding, the person suing
petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to
must show that he has a clear
use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the 403
enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to enjoy the
privilege has been forfeited.—“A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to
determine the right of a VOL. 696, APRIL 16,
_______________
* EN BANC. 2013 03
401 De Castro vs. Carlos
right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a
showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, usurper is immaterial.
2013 01
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Quo Warranto.
De Castro vs. Carlos    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
person to use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the holder   Bernardino P. Salvador, Jr. for petitioner.
from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to
  Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno for respondent.
enjoy the privilege has been forfeited.” Where the action is filed by a private
person, in his own name, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted
position, otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the SERENO, C.J.:
office. Before us is a Petition for the issuance of a writ of quo
Civil Service; Career Service; Career service is characterized by the warranto under Rule 66 filed by Emmanuel A. de Castro (petitioner)
existence of security of tenure, as contradistinguished from non-career seeking to oust respondent Emerson S. Carlos (respondent) from the
service whose tenure is coterminous with that of the appointing authority; or position of assistant general manager for operations (AGMO) of the
subject to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period specified by law or to Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
the duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment was
On 29 July 2009, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
made.—Executive Order No. (E.O.) 292, otherwise known as The Revised
Administrative Code of 1987, provides for two classifications of positions in appointed petitioner as AGMO.  His appointment was concurred in
1

the civil service: career and non-career. Career service is characterized by the by the members of the Metro Manila Council in MMDA Resolution
existence of security of tenure, as contradistinguished from non-career service No. 09-10, Series of 2009.  He took his oath on 17 August 2009
2

whose tenure is coterminous with that of the appointing authority; or subject before then Chairperson Bayani F. Fernando. 3

to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period specified by law or to the Meanwhile, on 29 July 2010, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa
duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment was made. issued Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2,
Applying the foregoing distinction to the instant case, this Court finds that an Series of 2010, amending OP Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of
AGMO holds a career position, considering that the MMDA Charter
2010.
specifically provides that AGMs enjoy security of tenure—the core
characteristic of a career service, as distinguished from a non-career service OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 states:
position. 2. All non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESO) occupying
Same; Same; Career Executive Service (CES); Two Elements Career Executive Service (CES) positions in all agencies of
_______________
Required for a Position to be Considered as Career Executive Service (CES). 1 Rollo, p. 21.
—In sum, there are two elements required for a position to be considered as 2 Id., at pp. 23-24.
3 Id., at p. 22.
CES: 1) The position is among those enumerated under Book V, Title I,
Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 OR a
404
position of equal rank as those enumerated and identified by the CESB to be
such position of equal rank; AND 2) The holder of the position is a
presidential appointee. Records show that in reply to Chairperson Tolentino’s 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
query on whether the positions of general manager and AGM of the MMDA
are covered by the CES, the CESB—thru Executive Director Allones— 4 ANNOTATED
categorically stated that these positions are not among those covered by the De Castro vs. Carlos
CES. Upon petitioner’s separate inquiry on the matter, the CESB similarly
the executive branch shall remain in office and continue to perform their
responded that the AGMO’s position could not be considered as belonging to
duties and discharge their responsibility until October 31, 2010 or until their
the CES. Additionally, Executive Director Allones said that petitioner was not
resignations have been accepted and/or until their respective replacements
covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.402
have been appointed or designated, whichever comes first, unless they are
reappointed in the meantime. 4

4 SUPREME COURT
On 30 July 2010, Atty. Francis N. Tolentino, chairperson of the
02 REPORTS ANNOTATED
MMDA, issued Office Order No. 106,  designating Corazon B. Cruz
5

De Castro vs. Carlos as officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Office of the AGMO. Petitioner was
Same; Same; Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO); An then reassigned to the Legal and Legislative Affairs Office, Office of
Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO) performs functions that the General Manager. The service vehicle and the office space
are managerial in character; exercises management over people, resource, previously assigned to him were withdrawn and assigned to other
and/or policy; and assumes functions like planning, organizing, directing, employees.
coordinating, controlling, and overseeing the activities of Metro Manila
Development Authority (MMDA).—An AGMO performs functions that are
 Subsequently, on 2 November 2010, Chairperson Tolentino occupying a CES position, he is covered by OP Memorandum
designated respondent as OIC of the Office of the AGMO by virtue Circular Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent likewise raises the issue of
of Memorandum Order No. 24,  which in turn cited OP Memorandum
6
procedural infirmity in the direct recourse to the Supreme Court by
Circular No. 2 as basis. Thereafter, the name of petitioner was petitioner, who thereby failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of
stricken off the MMDA payroll, and he was no longer paid his salary courts.
beginning November 2010. Hierarchy of Courts
Petitioner sought a clarification  from the Career Executive
7
As to the procedural issue, petitioner submits that a direct
Service Board (CESB) as to the proper classification of the position recourse to this Court is warranted by the urgent demands of public
of AGMO. In her reply,  Executive Director Maria Anthonette
8
interest, particularly the veritable need for stability in the civil service
Allones (Executive Director Allones), CESO I, stated that the and the protection of the rights of civil servants. Moreover,
position of AGMO had not yet been classified and could not be considering that no other than the President of the Philippines is the
considered as belonging to the Career Executive Service (CES). She appointing authority, petitioner
further stated that a perusal of the appointment papers of petitioner 407
showed that he was not holding a coterminous position. In sum, she VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 407
said, he was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.
Petitioner was later offered the position of Director IV of De Castro vs. Carlos
MMDA Public Health and Safety Services and/or MMDA doubts if a trial court judge or an appellate court justice, with a
_______________ prospect of promotion in the judiciary would be willing to go against
4 Id., at p. 8. a presidential appointment.
5 Id., at p. 26.
6 Id., at p. 30.
Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
7 Id., at pp. 31-32, Letter dated 5 November 2010. explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
8 Id., at pp. 33-34, Letter dated 12 November 2010. over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but
405 is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 405 court and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.  The hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
16

De Castro vs. Carlos Settled is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of last resort
consultant. He turned down the offer, claiming that it was a demotion and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
in rank. assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial
Demanding payment of his salary and reinstatement in the tradition.”  A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
17

monthly payroll,  petitioner sent a letter on 5 December 2010 to

9
warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. 18

Edenison Faisan, assistant general manager (AGM) for Finance and A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only
Administration; and Lydia Domingo, Director III, Administrative when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and
Services. For his failure to obtain an action or a response from specifically set forth in a petition.  The rationale behind this policy
19

MMDA, he then made a formal demand for his reinstatement as arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon
AGMO through a letter addressed to the Office of the President on 17 the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to those
December 2010. 10
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding
However, on 4 January 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III of the Court’s docket. 20

(President Aquino) appointed respondent as the new AGMO of the _______________

MMDA.  On 10 January 2011, the latter took his oath of office.
11
16 Capalla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 201112, 201121, 201127,
Hence, the instant Petition. 201413, 13 June 2012, 673 SCRA 1.
17 Vergara Sr. v. Suelto, 240 Phil. 719, 732; 156 SCRA 753, 766 (1987).
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing 18 Lacson Hermanas, Inc. v. Heirs of Ignacio, 500 Phil. 673, 676; 462 SCRA 290,
respondent, filed its Comment on 19 August 2011.  However, upon 12
293 (2005).
motion of petitioner, it was disqualified from representing 19 Ouano v. PGTT, 434 Phil. 28, 34; 384 SCRA 589, 593 (2002).
20 Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 27 January 1993, 217 SCRA 633;
respondent. Thus, a private law firm  entered an appearance as
13
and People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418, 427; 172 SCRA 415, 424 (1989).
counsel for respondent and adopted the Comment filed by the OSG. 14

Petitioner filed his Reply on 17 November 2011. 408

Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues  for the consideration of
15
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
this Court: 8 ANNOTATED
_______________
9  Id., at pp. 42-44. De Castro vs. Carlos
10 Id., at pp. 45-56. In this case, petitioner justified his act of directly filing with this
11 Id., at p. 57. Court only when he filed his Reply and after respondent had already
12 Id., at pp. 111-129.
13 Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno. raised the procedural infirmity that may cause the outright dismissal
14 Entry of Appearance (With Prayer to Adopt Comment dated 13 September of the present Petition. Petitioner likewise cites stability in the civil
2011). service and protection of the rights of civil servants as rationale for
15 Id., at pp. 14-15.
disregarding the hierarchy of courts.
406
Petitioner’s excuses are not special and important circumstances
that would allow a direct recourse to this Court. More so, mere
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS speculation and doubt to the exercise of judicial discretion of the
6 ANNOTATED lower courts are not and cannot be valid justifications to hurdle the
hierarchy of courts. Thus, the Petition must be dismissed.
De Castro vs. Carlos Nature of the AGMO Position
(1) Whether respondent Emerson S. Carlos was validly appointed Even assuming that petitioner’s direct resort to this Court is
by President Aquino to the position of AGMO of the MMDA; permissible, the Petition must still be dismissed for lack of merit.
(2) Whether petitioner Emmanuel A. de Castro is entitled to the “A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the
position of AGMO; and right of a person to use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust
(3) Whether or not respondent should pay petitioner the salaries and the holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-
financial benefits he received during his illegal tenure as AGMO founded, or if his right to enjoy the privilege has been
of the MMDA. forfeited.”  Where the action is filed by a private person, in his own
21

name, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position,

The Court’s Ruling otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the
office. 22

Petitioner contends that Section 2(3), Article IX(B) of the 1987 The controversy arose from the issuance of OP Memorandum
Constitution guarantees the security of tenure of employees in the Circular Nos. 1 and 2, which applies to all non-CESO’s occupying
civil service. He further argues that his appointment as AGMO is not CES positions in all agencies of the executive branch. Petitioner,
covered by OP Memorandum Circular No. 2, since it is not a CES being a non-CESO, avers that he is not covered by these OP
position as determined by the CESB. memoranda considering that the AGMO of the MMDA is a non-CES
On the other hand, respondent posits that the AGMO position position.
belongs to the CES; thus, in order to have security of tenure, _______________
21 Mendoza v. Allas, 362 Phil. 238, 244; 302 SCRA 623, 628 (1999).
petitioner, must be a Career Executive Service official (CESO). 22 Id.
Respondent maintains that the function of an AGM is executive and
managerial in nature. Thus, considering that petitioner is a non-CESO 409
 Department Service, or (2) a position of equal rank as those enumerated,
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 409 and identified by the Career Executive Service Board to be such position
De Castro vs. Carlos of equal rank. Second, the holder of the position must be a presidential
In order to settle the controversy, there is a need to determine the appointee. Failing in any of these requirements, a position cannot be
considered as one covered by the third-level or CES. (Emphasis supplied)
nature of the contentious position of AGMO of the MMDA.
Career vs. non-career
In sum, there are two elements required for a position to be
Section 4 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7924,  otherwise known as 23

considered as CES:
the MMDA Charter, specifically created the position of AGMO. It
1) The position is among those enumerated under Book V, Title
reads as follows:
 Sec. 4. Metro Manila Council. x x x.
I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative
 x x x x Code of 1987 OR a position of equal rank as those
The Council shall be headed by a Chairman, who shall be appointed by enumerated and identified by the CESB to be such position
the President and who shall continue to hold office at the discretion of the of equal rank; AND
appointing authority. He shall be vested with the rank, rights, privileges, 2) The holder of the position is a presidential appointee.
disqualifications, and prohibitions of a Cabinet member. _______________
 The Chairman shall be assisted by a General Manager, an Assistant 27 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 7.
General Manager for Finance and Administration, an Assistant General 28 G.R. Nos. 185766 and 185767, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 749, 765.
Manager for Planning and an Assistant General Manager for Operations,
all of whom shall be appointed by the President with the consent and 412
concurrence of the majority of the Council, subject to civil service laws 41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
and regulations. They shall enjoy security of tenure and may be removed
for cause in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied) 2 ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
Executive Order No. (E.O.) 292, otherwise known as The Records show that in reply  to Chairperson Tolentino’s query on
29

Revised Administrative Code of 1987, provides for two whether the positions of general manager and AGM of the MMDA
classifications of positions in the civil service: career and non- are covered by the CES,  the CESB—thru Executive Director
30

career. 24
Allones—categorically stated that these positions are not among
_______________
23 An Act Creating The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining Its those covered by the CES.
Powers And Functions, Providing Funding Therefor And For Other Purposes. Upon petitioner’s separate inquiry on the matter,  the CESB 31

24 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 6. similarly responded that the AGMO’s position could not be
considered as belonging to the CES.  Additionally, Executive32

410
Director Allones said that petitioner was not covered by OP
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2, to wit:
0 ANNOTATED A cursory perusal of your appointment papers would show that it does not
bear any indication that you are holding a coterminous appointment. Neither
De Castro vs. Carlos your position as AGMO can be considered as created in excess of the
Career service is characterized by the existence of security of authorized staffing pattern since RA 7924, the law that created the MMDA
tenure,  as contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure
25 clearly provided for such position. As further stated above, your position will
not fall under paragraph No. 2 of OP MC 1 because it is not yet considered as
is coterminous with that of the appointing authority; or subject to the belonging to the CES. Hence, we posit that you are not covered by OP MC 1
latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period specified by law or to the and 2.33

duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment

was made. 26
However, contrary to Executive Director Allones’ statement, the
Applying the foregoing distinction to the instant case, this Court CESB, through Resolution No. 799 already declared certain positions
finds that an AGMO holds a career position, considering that the meeting the criteria set therein as embraced within the CES.
MMDA Charter specifically provides that AGMs enjoy security of It is worthy of note that CESB Resolution No. 799 was issued on
tenure—the core characteristic of a career service, as distinguished 19 May 2009, even prior to petitioner’s appointment on 29 July 2009.
from a non-career service position. Moreover, as early as 31 May 1994, the above classification was
CES vs. non-CES already embodied in CSC Resolution No. 34-2925, circularized in
Career service includes the following: CSC Memorandum Circular 21, Series of 1994.
(1) Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification _______________
in an appropriate examination is required; 29 Rollo, p. 41, Letter dated 8 September 2010.
(2) Closed Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in 30 Id., at pp. 35-40, Letter dated 28 August 2010.
nature; these include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and 31 Supra at note 6.
universities, and scientific and technical positions in scientific or research 32 Supra at note 7.
33 Id., at p. 34.
institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3)  Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely,
413
Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau
Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 413
Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be
identified by the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are De Castro vs. Carlos
appointed by the President; Resolution No. 799 classified the following positions as falling
(4) Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, within the coverage of the CES:
who are appointed by the President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in a. The Career Executive Service includes the positions of Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director
the Department of Foreign Affairs; (department-wide and bureau-wide), Assistant Regional Director (department-
_______________
wide and bureau-wide), and Chief of Department Service;
25 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 7.
b. Unless provided otherwise, all other managerial or executive positions in the
26 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 9.
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters are embraced within the CES provided that they meet the
411 following criteria:
i.) The position is a career position;
ii.) The position is above division chief level; and,
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 411 iii.) The duties and responsibilities of the position require performance of
executive and managerial functions.
De Castro vs. Carlos
(5) Commissioned officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces Without a doubt, the AGMO position is not one of those
which shall maintain a separate merit system; enumerated in the above-cited paragraph(a) but it clearly falls under
(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, paragraph(b) considering that it belongs to a government-owned and
whether performing governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall controlled corporation with an original charter. The nature of AGMO
under the non-career service; and is clear from the provisions of the MMDA Charter.
(7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or First, we have already determined that an AGMO is a career
unskilled.  (Emphasis supplied)
27

position that enjoys security of tenure by virtue of the MMDA

Charter.
In Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals and PCSO,  the 28

Second, it is undisputed that the position of AGMO is above the

Court clarified the positions covered by the CES:
Thus, from the long line of cases cited above, in order for a position to be
division chief level, which is equivalent to the rank of assistant
covered by the CES, two elements must concur. First, the position must either secretary with Salary Grade 29. 34

_______________
be (1) a position enumerated under Book V, Title I, Subsection A,
34 Rollo, p. 123, Comment.
Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987, i.e.,
Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau
414
Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of
 permanent where the appointee meets all the requirements for the position to
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed,
4 ANNOTATED and it is temporary where the appointee meets all the requirements for the
position except only the appropriate civil service eligibility.
De Castro vs. Carlos x x x x
Third, a perusal of the MMDA Charter readily reveals that the With particular reference to positions in the career executive service
duties and responsibilities of the position require the performance of (CES), the requisite civil service eligibility is acquired upon passing the CES
executive and managerial functions. examinations administered by the CES Board and the subsequent conferment
Section 12.4, Rule IV of the Rules and Regulations of such eligibility upon passing the examinations. Once a person acquires
eligibility, he either earns the status of a permanent appointee to the CES
Implementing R.A. 7924 provides the powers, functions, duties and
position to which he has previously been appointed, or he becomes qualified
responsibilities of an AGMO, as follows: for a permanent appointment to that position provided only that he also
12.4 Assistant General Manager for Operations possesses all the other qualifications for the position. Verily, it is clear that the
The Assistant General Manager for Operations shall possession of the required CES eligibility is that which will make an
perform the following functions: appointment in the career executive service a permanent one. Petitioner does
a. Establish a mechanism for coordinating and not possess such eligibility, however, it cannot be said that his appointment to
operationalizing the delivery of metro-wide basic the position was permanent.
services; Indeed, the law permits, on many occasions, the appointment of non-CES
eligibles to CES positions in the government in the absence of appropriate
b. Maintain a monitoring system for the effective
eligibles and when there is necessity in the interest of public service to fill
evaluation of the implementation of approved vacancies in the government. But in all such cases, the appointment is at best
policies, plans and programs for the development of merely temporary as it is said to be conditioned on the subsequent obtention
Metropolitan Manila; of the required CES eligibility. This rule, according to De Leon v. Court of
c. Mobilize the participation of local government units, Appeals, Dimayuga v. Benedicto, Caringal v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
executive departments or agencies of the national Office, and Achacoso v. Macaraig, is invariable even though the
_______________
government, and the private sector in the delivery of 38 G.R. No. 170093, 29 April 2009, 587 SCRA 160, 167-169.
metrowide services; and
d. Operate a central radio communication system. 417
He shall perform such other duties as are incidental or
related to the above functions or as may be assigned from VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 417
time to time.
De Castro vs. Carlos
An AGMO performs functions that are managerial in character; given appointment may have been designated as permanent by the appointing
exercises management over people, resource, and/or policy; and authority.
x x x x
assumes functions like planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, Security of tenure in the career executive service, which presupposes a
controlling, and overseeing the activities of MMDA. The position permanent appointment, takes place upon passing the CES examinations
requires the application of managerial or supervisory skills necessary administered by the CES Board x x x.
to carry out duties and responsibilities involving functional guidance,
leadership, and supervision. Petitioner undisputedly lacked CES eligibility. Thus, he did not
For the foregoing reasons, the position of AGMO is within the hold the position of AGMO in a permanent capacity or acquire
coverage of the CES.415 security of tenure in that position. Otherwise stated, his appointment
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 415 was temporary and “coterminus with the appointing
authority.”  In Carillo v. CA,  this Court ruled that “one who holds a
39 40

De Castro vs. Carlos temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment
In relation thereto, positions in the career service, for which can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power, there being
appointments require examinations, are grouped into three major no need to show that the termination is for cause.” Therefore, we find
levels: 35
no violation of security of tenure when petitioner was replaced by
Sec. 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service.—(1) Classes of respondent upon the latter’s appointment to the position of AGMO by
positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations
President Aquino.
shall be grouped into three major levels as follows:
(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and custodial Even granting for the sake of argument that the position of
service positions which involve non-professional or sub-professional AGMO is yet to be classified by the CESB, petitioner’s appointment
work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than is still deemed coterminous pursuant to CESB Resolution No. 945
four years of collegiate studies; issued on 14 June 2011, which reads:
(b) The second level shall include professional, technical, and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, the Supreme Court in the case
scientific positions which involve professional, technical or scientific of PCSO v. CSC, G.R. No. 185766 and G.R. No. 185767 limited the
work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least coverage of positions belonging to the CES to positions requiring
four years of college work up to Division Chief levels; and
Presidential appointments.
(c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive
Service. (Emphasis supplied) WHEREAS, in the same vein, CES positions have now become
synonymous to third level positions by virtue of the said ruling.
Entrance to different levels requires corresponding civil service WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Board
eligibilities.  Those at the third level (CES positions) require career
36 RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, to issue the following
service executive eligibility (CSEE) as a requirement for permanent guide-
_______________
appointment. 37
39 Ong v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 184219, 30 January 2012, 664 SCRA
Evidently, an AGMO should possess all the qualifications 413, 418-419.
required by third-level career service within the CES. In this case, 40 167 Phil. 527, 533; 77 SCRA 170, 175 (1977).
petitioner does not have the required eligibility. Therefore, we find
418
that his appointment to the position of AGMO was merely temporary.
_______________
35 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 8. 41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
36 Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 485 Phil. 182, 204; 442 SCRA 507, 527
(2004). 8 ANNOTATED
37 Memorandum Circular 37, s. 1998, dated 20 October 1998; Memorandum
Circular 1, s. 1997, dated 24 January 1997. De Castro vs. Carlos
lines to clarify the policy on the coverage of CES and its
416
classification:
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1. For career service positions requiring Presidential
6 ANNOTATED appointments expressly enumerated under Section 7(3),
Chapter 2, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative
De Castro vs. Carlos Code of 1987 namely: Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary,
Amores v. Civil Service Commission  is instructive as to the
38
Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional
nature of temporary appointments in the CES. The Court held therein Director, Assistant Regional Director, and Chief of
that an appointee cannot hold a position in a permanent capacity Department Service, no classification of position is necessary
without the required CES eligibility: to place them under the coverage of the CES, except if they
We begin with the precept, firmly established by law and jurisprudence belong to Project Offices, in which case a position
that a permanent appointment in the civil service is issued to a person who has classification is required, in consultation with the Department
met the requirements of the position to which the appointment is made in
of Budget and Management (DBM).
accordance with law and the rules issued pursuant thereto. An appointment is
 2. For positions requiring Presidential appointments other
than those enumerated above, a classification of positions
is necessary which shall be conducted by the Board, upon
request of the head of office of the government
department/agency concerned, to place them under the
coverage of the CES provided they comply with the
following criteria:
i.) The position is a career position;
ii.) The position is above division chief level; and,
iii.) The duties and responsibilities of the position
require the performance of executive and managerial
functions.
All appointments to positions which have not been previously
classified as part of the CES would be deemed co-terminus with
the appointing authority. (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, considering that petitioner is an appointee of then

President Arroyo whose term ended on 30 June 2010, petitioner’s
term of office was also deemed terminated upon the assumption of
President Aquino.
Likewise, it is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly
replaced by 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 another. Ab-
419
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 2013 419
De Castro vs. Carlos
sent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of
the supposed usurper is immaterial. 41

All the foregoing considered, the petition merits an outright

dismissal for disregarding the hierarchy of courts and petitioner’s
lack of cause of action against respondent for failure to sufficiently
show that he has undisturbed rights to the position of AGMO of the
MMDA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta,
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.