UP Law F2021 097 Ambas v.

Buenaseda
PubOff Civil Service; Appointments 1991 Padilla, J.

SUMMARY
Petitioners were appointed and employed as resident-trainees by the DOH and assigned to the National
Center for Mental Health. They were issued temporary appointments for a period of 1 year. Thereafter, they
were terminated by the NCMH, prior to the expiration of the 1-year term, due to poor academic
performance. More than a month after, the DOH Secretary confirmed this termination. Eventually, the SC
ruled that, even though they were issued temporary appointments, they may only be terminated for
cause within the 1-year term. Also, the SC held that the power to terminate was not with the NCMH, but
with the appointing authority, which is the DOH Secretary. Thus, the SC held that the petitioners, while
terminated for just cause prior to the expiration of the 1-year period, were illegally terminated by NCMH
and that this termination became valid only on the date that the DOH Secretary confirmed such termination.

FACTS1
 Drs. Ambas, Bernal, De Leon, Gunabe, Morena, and Tolentino (collectively, “petitioners”) were
employed and retained as Resident-Trainee physicians by the DOH, assigned to the National Center
for Mental Health (“NCMH”), under the government’s residency program.
 They were issued temporary appointments as resident trainees on the following dates:
Resident-Trainee Date of Temporary Appointment
Ambas 14 October 1988
Bernal 28 April 1989 (renewal)
De Leon 13 October 1988
Gunabe 20 October 1988
Morena 29 December 1988
Tolentino 24 February 1989 (renewal)
 Individual contracts of residency were entered into by each doctor and NCMH, wherein it was
stipulated that:
 NCMH would temporarily employ petitioners as Resident-Trainees for 1 year, subject to
renewal every year, but not to exceed 4 years;
 They may not engage in private practice of profession even outside regular office hours;
 (important) NCMH reserves the right to terminate the training of the Resident-Trainee for
(a) poor performance or (b) failure to meet the standards of medical ethics, performance, and
behavior, as evaluated by the Teaching Training Staff of NCMH.
 In an undated report by Dr. Efren Reyes (“Reyes”), the NCMH Medical Training Officer, he
recommended the termination of the petitioners, due to poor academic performance and low
ranking. In addition, Morena was found to have violated the Code of Conduct of Resident Physicians.
 Dr. Reyes’s recommendation was based on the result of an evaluation by the Residency
Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) of all NCMH resident-trainees.
 In a letter dated 16 June 1989, petitioners were individually informed by the Committee of their
termination effective 1 July 1989, with the approval of Dr. Buenaseda, NCMH Chief.
 The petitioners wrote twice to the DOH Secretary, assailing their termination, but received no reply.
 They then wrote a letter-complaint to the CSC Chairman, but such was also not acted upon.
 They then assailed their termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The
petitioners challenged their termination as arbitrary and violative of existing civil service laws,
regulations, and PD 1424 governing the residency training program in government hospitals.
 DOH: On 17 August 1989, the DOH Secretary endorsed the letter-complaint to the CSC for action,
and included a confirmation of the termination of petitioners in this endorsement.
 BOARD: On 28 August 1989, the Board ruled that the petitioners’ termination was invalid, and
ordered their reinstatement.
 The Board opined that the power to remove the petitioners rests with the appointing
authority (the DOH Secretary) and thus NCMH didn’t have the power to terminate them.

1
Please note that I underlined each of the characters’ names at the first instance that each appeared in the facts; dates, periods, and
article numbers (along with some emphasized facts) are in bold letters; and documents are in italics.
  After receipt of the Board’s decision, the petitioners filed a Motion for Execution. But before this
could be acted upon, NCMH Chief Buenaseda filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision.
 The NCMH Chief argued that the termination was done (1) in good faith, (2) with approval
and/or confirmation of the DOH Secretary, and (3) as “temporary” appointees, they could be
terminated from employment at any time with or without cause.
 The petitioners countered this by averring that (1) the appointment of a resident trainee is
discretionary upon the DOH Secretary, (2) that the designation as “temporary” does not
remove the permanency of their appointment during the period of their training, and (3) that
they were deprived of their right to due process because they weren’t served a copy of the
Motion for Reconsideration.
 BOARD: On 25 October 1989, the Board reversed its earlier decision and now ruled that whatever
defect the termination had was cured by the confirmation of the DOH Secretary, who is the
appointing authority.
 PD 1424 provided that the petitioners shall be appointed for 1 year, renewable in the
discretion of the DOH Secretary. In addition, the Board ruled that nowhere in the law was it
mentioned that their appointments were permanent within the duration of the training.
 Also, because their appointments were temporary, it followed that they may be terminated at
any time with or without cause.
 Nevertheless, the Board ruled that the petitioners were entitled to backwages, from the time
they were illegally terminated (1 July 1989) up to the time their termination was confirmed
by the DOH Secretary (17 August 1989).
 CSC: The petitioners appealed to the CSC, but on 5 September 1990, it upheld the Board’s 25
October 1989 resolution, upon the ground that their appointments being temporary, they could be
terminated at any time with or without cause. Also, the CSC applied the presumption of regularity
to the evaluation conducted by the Committee (upon which the termination was based).

RATIO
ISSUE # 1: W/N the resident-trainees’ appointment on a temporary basis meant that they may be
removed prior to the expiration of the 1-year period without cause—NO; REMOVAL PRIOR TO
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM MUST BE FOR CAUSE

Under Section 1 of RA 2251 or the Hospital Residency Law, as amended by PD 1424, which governs
the residency program in government service, the appointment of resident trainees is limited to 1 year,
renewable every year at the discretion of the DOH Secretary or DND Secretary, as the case may be.
Because the NCMH is under the DOH, it is thus the DOH Secretary who has the authority to appoint as well
as terminate the resident-trainees. The power to remove is deemed lodged in the same body or
person in which the power to appoint is vested.

The fact that their appointments were temporary did not give authority to the DOH Secretary to terminate
the petitioners at any time without cause, because the term fixed by the law protects the right of the
resident-trainees from being removed from office without cause.2 “Term” is defined as the definite
period of time prescribed by law by which an officer may hold office, perform its functions, and enjoy its
privileges and emoluments until the expiration of said period.

∴ Thus, the petitioners may only be removed for cause during the 1-year term of their appointments.

ISSUE # 2A: W/N their termination was for cause—YES

ISSUE # 2B: W/N their termination was valid or invalid—INVALID, on the date of their termination
by NCMH; but eventually became VALID on the date of the DOH Secretary’s confirmation of the
termination

However, while the petitioners may not be removed without cause during the 1-year term of their
appointment, the DOH Secretary may choose not to renew their appointments, after expiration of the

2
In other words, even temporary appointments are entitled to security of tenure during their term, which means that they may only be
removed during their term for just cause.
original 1-year term, whether with or without cause, because a renewal is only at the discretion of the
DOH Secretary. This non-renewal is a valid mode of termination.

In this case, however, the termination by NCMH on 1 July 1989 and confirmation by the DOH Secretary
on 17 August 1989 was made before the expiration of their 1-year appointments (see Facts). It is thus
necessary that their removal be for cause.

And their removal was found by the SC to indeed be for cause.

In their residency training in psychiatry, the NCMH had the right to set a standard to be met by the
resident-trainees, to produce graduates who are qualified and skilled in the said field. Hence, the NCMH
recommended to the DOH Secretary the termination of the petitioners for failing to meet the standard set
for the program: all the petitioners were evaluated to have poor academic performance and low
ranking, while Morena was also found to have violated the Code of Conduct of Resident Physicians.

Nevertheless, the NCMH had no power to terminate, because this power is lodged in the DOH Secretary, as
the appointing power.

∴ Thus, while their termination was FOR CAUSE, only the DOH Secretary, as the appointing
authority, may terminate the resident-trainees, and not the NCMH. Consequently, the petitioners
were illegally terminated by NCMH on 1 July 1989, but the DOH Secretary’s confirmation on 17
August 1989 made the termination valid, as of the same date (17 August 1989).

The SC therefore upheld the grant of backwages to the petitioners from 1 July 1989 to 17 August 1989.

[Digester’s Note—We can thus summarize as follows: For a termination to be valid before expiration of the
period in the temporary appointment, it must be effected (1) by the appointing authority and (2) for cause,]

FALLO

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.