Binamira v. Garrucho
G.R. No.
92008 July 30, 1990
Cruz, J.
Facts:
Ramon
P. Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office of General Manager of the Philippine
Tourism Authority from which he claims to have been removed without just cause in
violation of his security of tenure.
Binamira claims that since assuming
office, he had discharged the duties of PTA General Manager and Vice-Chairman of
its Board of Directors and had been acknowledged as such by various government offices,
including the Office of the President.
He complains, though, that on January
2, 1990, his resignation was demanded by respondent Garrucho as the new Secretary
of Tourism. Binamira’s demurrer led to an unpleasant exchange that led to his filing
of a complaint against the Secretary with the Commission on Human Rights.
Section 23-A of P.D. 564, which created the
Philippine Tourism Authority, provides as follows:
SECTION 23-A. General Manager-Appointment and Tenure.
— The General Manager shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines and
shall serve for a term of six (6) years unless sooner removed for cause; Provided, That upon the expiration of
his term, he shall serve as such until his successor shall have been appointed and
qualified. (As amended by P.D. 1400)
Issue:
whether Binamira was appointed as
General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority or merely designated
Held:
Petitioner
was not appointed by the President of the Philippines but only designated by the
Minister of Tourism. There is a clear distinction between appointment and designation
that the petitioner has failed to consider. Appointment may be defined as the selection,
by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office. When completed,
usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of tenure for
the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of
his office. Designation, on the other
hand, connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent
official, as where, in the case before
us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution, three Justices
of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral
Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially executive
while designation is legislative in nature.
Designation may also be loosely defined
as an appointment because it likewise involves the naming of a particular person
to a specified public office. That is the common understanding of the term. However,
where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that
he shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will
by the appointing authority. In this sense, the designation is considered only an
acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the
person named.
Even if so
understood, that is, as an appointment, the designation of the petitioner cannot
sustain his claim that he has been illegally removed. The reason is that the decree
clearly provides that the appointment of the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism
Authority shall be made by the President of the Philippines, not by any other officer.
Appointment involves the exercise of discretion, which because of its nature cannot
be delegated. Legally speaking, it was not possible for Minister Gonzales to assume
the exercise of that discretion as an alter
ego of the President. The appointment
(or designation) of the petitioner was not a merely mechanical or ministerial act
that could be validly performed by a subordinate even if he happened as in this
case to be a member of the Cabinet.
No comments:
Post a Comment