Marohombsar vs. Alonto, Jr.

An appointment denominated as “acting” is not conclusive as to its temporary character; courts may examine the attending circumstances — including the indefinite term, confirmation by the body vested with the power to appoint, and the abolition of a permanent office — to determine whether the label is being used as a device to evade the constitutional security-of-tenure guarantee.

Petitioner Dr. Emily M. Marohombsar had been a career official of Mindanao State University (MSU) for over 27 years and had occupied the permanent position of Vice-President for External Studies since 1982. On 22 March 1988, she was concurrently designated Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA) at the MSU Marawi Campus. In January 1989, the Office of the Vice-President for External Studies was merged with the OVCAA; the merger abolished her permanent office, and she was appointed “Acting Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs.” Respondent Ahmad E. Alonto, Jr., the MSU President, subsequently attempted to reassign her to a position on his personal staff and, when she declined, designated another official to the OVCAA, effectively removing her.

• Petitioner’s Career and Designation: Petitioner joined Mindanao State University (MSU) over 27 years before the controversy and held the permanent position of Vice‑President for External Studies from 1982. On 22 March 1988, she was concurrently designated Officer‑in‑Charge of the Office of the Vice‑Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA) at MSU Marawi Campus.
• Abolition of Permanent Office and Acting Appointment: On 2 January 1989, the Office of the Vice‑President for External Studies was merged with the OVCAA; all its functions were transferred to the latter. On the same day, petitioner was appointed “Acting Vice‑Chancellor for Academic Affairs.” The effect of the merger was to abolish petitioner’s permanent item and replace it with a temporary appointment.
• Confirmation by the Board of Regents: On 16 May 1989, the MSU Board of Regents passed Resolution No. 59, S. 1989, confirming the Special Order designating petitioner as Acting Vice‑Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The resolution stated that the Special Order would “remain in force until revoked or amended by competent authority” and did not fix a definite term.
• Attempted Reassignment and Removal: On 14 May 1990, respondent President Alonto informed petitioner that he intended to tap her as Vice‑President for Academic Affairs, a position under his administrative staff. Petitioner declined on the same day, stating she wished to complete ongoing projects in the OVCAA. On 28 May 1990, respondent President issued Special Order No. 158‑P designating respondent Corazon Batara as Officer‑in‑Charge of the OVCAA, effectively removing petitioner from the post.
• Mass Conversion of Top Positions: At the same 16 May 1989 Board meeting, the President submitted for confirmation acting designations for practically all top university officers below the President — including acting executive vice‑president, acting vice‑presidents, and other acting vice‑chancellors — indicating a systematic scheme to convert permanent administrative positions into revocable designations.
• MSU Code Provisions: Under Section 40.5 (paragraph 22), Article 4 of the MSU Code of Governance, the President may designate a dean, director, or department chairman in an acting capacity for a period of less than one year, without additional compensation except honorarium, provided the designation is reported at the next regular Board meeting after which it becomes null and void unless renewed. Under Section 6(e) of the MSU Charter (R.A. No. 1387), the power to appoint belongs to the Board of Regents, upon the President’s recommendation.

• Nature of Appointment: Petitioner argued that her appointment as Vice‑Chancellor was permanent in nature, having been confirmed by the Board of Regents, and that she could be removed only for cause after due hearing.
• Circumvention of Security of Tenure: Petitioner contended that the “acting” label and the merger that abolished her permanent Vice‑President position were a stratagem to place her and all MSU executive officers at the pleasure of the President, effectively nullifying their constitutional right to security of tenure.

• Temporary and Revocable Appointment: Respondents maintained that the position was an acting designation, inherently temporary and revocable at any time without cause under established jurisprudence.
• Permanent Faculty Item: Respondents argued that petitioner’s actual permanent appointment was to the position of Professor VI; treating the acting Vice‑Chancellor post as permanent would create the anomalous situation of one person simultaneously holding two permanent public offices.

• Security of Tenure: Whether the removal of petitioner from her position as Acting Vice‑Chancellor for Academic Affairs without cause violated her constitutional right to security of tenure.

• Security of Tenure: The removal was invalid. Although an acting appointment is generally temporary and revocable, the Court may pierce the label when it is used to circumvent security of tenure. The merger that abolished petitioner’s permanent Vice‑President post, the confirmation of her indefinite “acting” appointment by the Board of Regents, and the simultaneous mass conversion of top positions into revocable designations revealed an intent to make her serve at the President’s pleasure. Under the MSU Code, the President’s power is limited to a designation of less than one year, which must be reported to the Board and becomes void unless renewed; the power to appoint rests with the Board of Regents. The Board’s confirmation transformed the designation into an ad interim appointment of permanent character. Following Tapales v. President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, university deans and directors enjoy security of tenure in their administrative offices, and the existence of a permanent faculty appointment does not detract from the permanence of the administrative post. Consequently, petitioner was entitled to remain as the lawful permanent occupant of the position until the expiration of her term or lawful termination.

• Piercing the “Acting” Appointment — While an acting appointment is a temporary, stop‑gap measure revocable without cause, neither can the appointing power use the principle of temporary appointments to evade the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The Court may examine the true nature of the appointment, including its duration, the manner of confirmation, and the surrounding circumstances that reveal a scheme to circumvent the Constitution.
• Ad Interim Appointment by Board Confirmation — A designation made by a university president, when submitted to and confirmed by the Board of Regents, operates as an ad interim appointment. Such an appointment is permanent in nature and not a mere revocable designation, because the confirming body exercises the power to appoint.
• Security of Tenure of University Administrators (Tapales doctrine) — University deans, directors, and vice‑chancellors selected from the faculty hold administrative posts that enjoy security of tenure. The fact that the appointee also holds a permanent faculty rank (e.g., Professor VI) does not convert the administrative appointment into a temporary position.

• “The essence of an acting appointment is its temporary nature. … A public officer appointed in an acting capacity cannot claim that the appointment shall in time ripen into a permanent one. However, neither can the appointing power use the principle of temporary appointments to evade or avoid the security of tenure principle in the Constitution and the Civil Service Law.” — This passage encapsulates the dual limit: the appointee’s non‑expectation of permanence and the appointing authority’s prohibition against abuse.
• “For the same reason, the Court may inquire into the true nature of an ‘acting’ appointment to determine whether or not it is used as a device to circumvent the security of tenure principle.” — This states the Court’s power to pierce the label.
• “When the Board of Regents confirmed the appointment of the petitioner on May 16, 1989, it was acting on an ad interim appointment effected by the President. No other interpretation can be validly made. If it was a mere designation, it needs no confirmation.” — The ratio on why the confirmation converted a designation into a permanent appointment.

• Tapales v. President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, 7 SCRA 553 (1963) — Relied upon as controlling; held that UP deans and directors enjoy security of tenure and that a separate faculty appointment does not make the administrative office temporary.
• Austria v. Amante, 79 Phil. 780 (1948); Castro v. Solidum, 97 Phil. 278 (1955); Mendez v. Ganzon, 101 Phil. 48 (1957); Valer v. Briones, 9 SCRA 596 (1963); Abana v. Aguipo, 15 SCRA 604 (1965); Hojilla v. Marilao, 13 SCRA 293 (1965) — Cited for the general rule that acting appointments are revocable without cause, but distinguished in that their application would be “routine or blind” given the circumstances indicative of circumvention.
• Sta. Maria v. Lopez, 31 SCRA 673 (1970) — Cited for the principle that a transfer ostensibly a promotion may in truth be a demotion; supported petitioner’s refusal of the Vice‑President for Academic Affairs post.
• Rodriguez, Jr. v. Quirino, 9 SCRA 284 (1963) — Cited to define an ad interim appointment as one made when the confirming body is not in session and there exists urgency.

• Section 6(e), Republic Act No. 1387 (MSU Charter) — Vests in the Board of Regents the power to appoint professors, instructors, lecturers, and other employees of the University upon the President’s recommendation. Applied to distinguish the Board’s appointing authority from the President’s power to designate.
• Section 40.5, paragraph 22, Article 4, MSU Code of Governance — Limits the President’s designation of deans, directors, or department chairmen in an acting capacity to less than one year, requires reporting to the Board at the next regular meeting, and makes the designation void after that meeting unless renewed. Applied to show that the indefinite appointment confirmed by the Board could not be a mere designation.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio‑Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño‑Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concurred.