SC ruling sets distinction between designation and appointment

I want to refer readers and everyone concerned to a 1992 the Supreme Court on Generoso R. Sevilla v. Court of Appeals and Nerito L. Santos (GR No. 88498 June 9, 1992).

in an acting capacity, and who permanent appointee was appointed to his position.

The petitioner took his case to the Court of Appeals. When he lost there, he brought the issue a quo warranto case against the permanent appointee.

‘Devoid of merit’

In its decision, the SC ruled the petition to be ”devoid of merit.”

The high court said: “An ‘acting’ appointment is merely temporary, one which is good only until another appointment is made to take its place. Hence, petitioner’s right to hold of Cabanatuan City’ was merely temporary. It lapsed upon the appointment of Nerito Santos as the permanent city engineer of Cabanatuan City on August 18, 1986.”

The SC said that “there is a difference between an appointment and a designation. Appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual who is to exercise the functions other hand, connotes merely the imposition of additional duties, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment or election.”

A mere “designation” does not confer upon the designate security of tenure in the position “acting” capacity only, it said.

distinction thus:

as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise When completed, usually with its results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because - ignation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in nature.

“Designation may also be - ment because it likewise involves the naming of a particular person is the common understanding of the term. However, where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication 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…Appointment involves the exercise of discretion, which because of its nature cannot be delegated.”

Therefore it ruled that the designation of the peititoner as Acting City Engineer of Cabanatuan City “merely imposed upon him the additional function of the City Engineer of Cabanatuan City on top of his regular duties as City Engineer of Palayan City. He may claim security of tenure as City Engineer of Palayan City but he may not lay such a claim to the position of City Engineering of Cabanatuan City for he holds no appointment to the

The high court said further: “The power of appointment is essentially discretionary. Its exercise may not be controlled by the courts. The choice of an appointee from among quali a political and administrative decision calling for considerations of wisdom, convenience, utility and the interests of the service which can best be made for he is familiar with the organizational structure and environmental circumstances within which the appointee must function.”

The case of VP Robredo

The case of VP Robredo and attendant issues can be read in the text of this Supreme Court ruling:

1. On being named as ICAD co-chairman, Robredo has not been appointed to a second Designation only means her assignment to functions in addition to her work as vice president.

2. As ICAD co- chairman, Robredo serves in a temporary capacity.

3. The authority of the appointing and designating authority is complete, it cannot be superseded by claims of the designate.

4. Finally, Robredo cannot claim policymaking powers as ICAD co-chairman. A designate is not part of the policymaking process in our current government system.

It never should have come to this. It could have been averted had she not surrendered herself does not exist.