VOL.

240, JANUARY 17, 1995

139
Felix vs. Buenaseda
G.R. No. 109704. January 17, 1995.*
ALFREDO B. FELIX, petitioner, vs. DR. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA, in her capacity as
Director, and ISABELO BANEZ, JR. in his capacity as Administrator, both of the
National Center for Mental Health, and the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
respondents.
Medical Profession; Appointments; Security of Tenure; A residency or resident
physician position in a medical specialty is never a permanent one, since
residency connotes training and temporary status.The patent absurdity of
petitioners posture is readily obvious. A residency or resident physician position
in a medical specialty is never a permanent one. Residency connotes training
and temporary status. It is the step taken by a physician right after postgraduate internship (and after
_______________

to the extent that they periodically make the grade, making the situation quite
unique as far as physicians undergoing post-graduate residencies and
fellowships are concerned.
Same; Same; Same; The nature of the contracts of resident physicians meets
traditional tests for determining employer-employee relationships, but because
the focus of residency is training, they are neither here nor there.While
physicians (or consultants) of specialist rank are not subject to the same
stringent evaluation procedures, specialty societies require continuing education
as a requirement for accreditation in good standing, in addition to peer review
processes based on performance, mortality and morbidity audits, feedback from
residents, interns and medical students and research output. The nature of the
contracts of resident physicians meet traditional tests for determining employeremployee relationships, but because the focus of residency is training, they are
neither here nor there. Moreover, stringent standards and requirements for
renewal of specialist-rank positions or
141

* EN BANC.
140

VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995

141
Felix vs. Buenaseda
for promotion to the next post-graduate residency year are necessary because
lives are ultimately at stake.
Same; Same; Same; Reorganizations; A Medical Specialists insistence on being
reverted back to the status quo prior to the reorganizations made pursuant to
Executive Order No. 119as a senior resident physicianwould be akin to a
college student asking to be sent back to high school and staying there.
Petitioners insistence on being reverted back to the status quo prior to the
reorganizations made pursuant to Executive Order No. 119 would therefore be
akin to a college student asking to be sent back to high school and staying
there. From the position of senior resident physician, which he held at the time
of the government reorganization, the next logical step in the stepladder process
was obviously his promotion to the rank of Medical Specialist I, a position which
he apparently accepted not only because of the increase in salary and rank but
because of the prestige and status which the promotion conferred upon him in
the medical community. Such status, however, clearly carried with it certain
professional responsibilities including the responsibility of keeping up with the
minimum requirements of specialty rank, the responsibility of keeping abreast
with current knowledge in his specialty and in Medicine in general, and the
responsibility of completing board certification requirements within a reasonable
period of time, The evaluation made by petitioners peers and superiors clearly
showed that he was deficient in a lot of areas, in addition to the fact that at the
time of his non-renewal, he was not even board-certified.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; An employee who neither pursued nor
mentioned his objections to his change of status from permanent senior resident
physician to temporary senior resident physician is estopped from insisting upon
a right or claim which he had plainly abandoned when he enthusiastically
accepted the promotion as Medical Specialist I (Temporary).We lay stress to

140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
hurdling the Medical Licensure Examinations) prior to his recognition as a
specialist or sub-specialist in a given field.
Same; Same; Same; The upward movement from residency to specialist rank,
institutionalized in the residency training process, guarantees minimum
standards and skills and ensures that the physician claiming to be a specialist
will not be set loose on the community without the basic knowledge and skills of
his specialty.A physician who desires to specialize in Cardiology takes a
required three-year accredited residency in Internal Medicine (four years in DOH
hospitals) and moves on to a two or three-year fellowship or residency in
Cardiology before he is allowed to take the specialty examinations given by the
appropriate accrediting college. In a similar manner, the accredited Psychiatrist
goes through the same stepladder process which culminates in his recognition
as a fellow or diplomate (or both) of the Psychiatry Specialty Board. This upward
movement from residency to specialist rank, institutionalized in the residency
training process, guarantees minimum standards and skills and ensures that the
physician claiming to be a specialist will not be set loose on the community
without the basic knowledge and skills of his specialty. Because acceptance and
promotion requirements are stringent, competitive, and based on merit,
acceptance to a first year residency program is no guaranty that the physician
will complete the program. Attrition rates are high. Some programs are
pyramidal. Promotion to the next post-graduate year is based on merit and
performance determined by periodic evaluations and examinations of
knowledge, skills and bedside manner. Under this system, residents, specially
those in university teaching hospitals enjoy their right to security of tenure only

the fact that petitioner made no attempt to oppose earlier renewals of his
temporary Specialist I contracts in 1989 and 1990, clearly demonstrating his
acquiescence toif not his unqualified acceptance ofthe promotion (albeit of a
temporary nature) made in 1988. Whatever objections petitioner had against the
earlier change from the status of permanent senior resident physician to
temporary senior resident physician were neither pursued nor mentioned at or
after his designation as Medical Specialist I (Temporary). He is therefore
estopped from insisting upon a right or claim which he had plainly abandoned
when he, from all indications, enthusiastically accepted the promotion, His
negligence to assert his claim within a reasonable time, coupled with his failure
to
142
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
repudiate his promotion to a temporary position, warrants a presumption, in the
words of this Court in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, that he either abandoned (his
claim) or declined to assert it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Civil Service Law; Weighty reasons of public
policy and convenience demand that any claim to any position in the civil
service, permanent, temporary or otherwise, or any claim to a violation of the
constitutional provision on security of tenure be made within a reasonable
period of time.There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience
which demand that any claim to any position in the civil service, permanent,
temporary or otherwise, or any claim to a violation of the constitutional provision
on security of tenure be made within a reasonable period of time. An assurance
of some degree of stability in the civil service is necessary in order to avoid
needless disruptions in the conduct of public business. Delays in the statement
of a right to any position are strongly discouraged.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Laches; The essence of laches is the
failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.In
the same token, the failure to assert a claim or the voluntary acceptance of
another position in government, obviously without reservation, leads to a
presumption that the civil servant has either given up his claim or has already
settled into the new position. This is the essence of laches which is the failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is the
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The change in designation from permanent
resident physician to temporary resident physician was necessary to rectify a
ludicrous situation whereby some government resident physicians were
erroneously being classified as permanent resident physicians in spite of the
inherently temporary nature of the designation.ln the specific case of the

change in designation from permanent resident physician to temporary resident

physician, a change was necessary, overall, to rectify a ludicrous situation
whereby some government resident physicians were erroneously being classified
as permanent resident physicians in spite of the inherently temporary nature of
the designation.
143
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
143
Felix vs. Buenaseda
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The patient who consults with a physician of
specialist rank should at least be safe in the assumption that the government
physician of specialist rank: 1) has completed all necessary requirements of
specialist training in his field; and 2) has been board-certified.The attempts by
the Department of Health not only to streamline these positions but to make
them conform to current standards of specialty practice is a step in a positive
direction. The patient who consults with a physician of specialist rank should at
least be safe in the assumption that the government physician of specialist rank:
1.) has completed all necessary requirements of specialist training in his field;
and 2.) has been board certified. These fundamental requirements at least
assure the public at large that those in government centers who claim to be
specialists in specific areas of Medicine possess the minimum knowledge and
skills required to fulfill that first and foremost maxim, embodied in the
Hippocratic Oath, that they do their patients no harm. Primium non nocere.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Non-renewal of an appointment for a definite
and renewable period does not involve dismissal but an expiration of term.
Finally, it is crystal clear, from the facts of the case at bench, that the petitioner
accepted a temporary appointment (Medical Specialist I). As respondent Civil
Service Commission has correctly pointed out, the appointment was for a
definite and renewable period which, when it was not renewed, did not involve a
dismissal but an expiration of the petitioners term.
PETITION for review of a resolution of the Civil Service Commission.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Agustin J. Guillermo for petitioner.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Taking advantage of this Courts decisions involving the removal of various civil
servants pursuant to the general reorganization of the government after the
EDSA Revolution, petitioner assails his dismissal as Medical Specialist I of the
National Center for Mental Health (formerly the National Mental Hospital) as
illegal and violative of the constitutional provision on security of tenure allegedly
because his removal was made pursuant to an invalid reorganization.
144
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Felix us. Buenaseda

In Mendoza vs. Quisumbing1 and the consolidated cases involving the
reorganization of various government departments and agencies we held:
We are constrained to set aside the reorganizations embodied in these
consolidated petitions because the heads of departments and agencies
concerned have chosen to rely on their own concepts of unlimited discretion and
progressive ideas on reorganization instead of showing that they have
faithfully complied with the clear letter and spirit of the two Constitutions and
the statutes affecting reorganization.2
In De Guzman vs. CSC,3 we upheld the principle, laid down by Justice J.B.L.
Reyes in Cruz vs. Primicias4 that a valid abolition of an office neither results in a
separation or removal, likewise upholding the corollary principle that if the
abolition is void, the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office,
in sustaining therein petitioners right to the position she held prior to the
reorganization.
The instant petition on its face turns on similar facts and issues, which is. that
petitioners removal from a permanent position in the National Center for Mental
Health as a result of the reorganization of the Department of Health was void.
However, a closer look at the facts surrounding the instant petition leads us to a
different conclusion.
After passing the Physicians Licensure Examinations given by the Professional
Regulation Commission in June of 1979, petitioner, Dr. Alfredo B. Felix, joined the
National Center for Mental Health (then the National Mental Hospital) on May 26,
1980 as a Resident Physician with an annual salary of P15,264.00.5 In August of
1983, he was promoted to the position of Senior
_______________
1 186 SCRA 108 (1990). In these consolidated cases various civil servants
adversely affected by the government wide reorganization challenged the
validity of reorganizations of various government departments and agencies
pursuant to the mandate granted by President Corazon Aquinos proclamation
No. 1. See also Manalo v. CSC, infra.
2 Id., at 152153.
3 G.R. No. 106692, March 11, 1994.
4 Also cited in Mendoza, supra at 138.
5 Rollo, p. 42; Annex F.
145
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
145
Felix vs. Buenaseda
Resident Physician6 a position he held until the Ministry of Health reorganized
the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) in January of 1988, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 119.
Under the reorganization, petitioner was appointed to the position of Senior
Resident Physician in a temporary capacity immediately after he and other
employees of the NCMH allegedly tendered their courtesy resignations to the

Secretary of Health.7 In August of 1988, petitioner was promoted to the position

of Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status), which position was renewed the
following year.8
In 1988, the Department of Health issued Department Order No. 347 which
required board certification as a prerequisite for renewal of specialist positions in
various medical centers, hospitals and agencies of the said department.
Specifically, Department Order No. 347 provided that specialists working in
various hospitals and branches of the Department of Health be recognized as
Fellows of their respective specialty societies and/or Diplomates of their
specialty boards or both. The Order was issued for the purpose of upgrading the
quality of specialists in DOH hospitals by requiring them to pass rigorous
theoretical and clinical (bedside) examinations given by recognized specialty
boards, in keeping up with international standards of medical practice.
Upon representation of the Chiefs of Hospitals of various government hospitals
and medical centers, (then) Secretary of Health Alfredo Bengzon issued
Department Order 478, series of 1991 amending Sec. 4 of Department Order No.
347 providing for an extension of appointments of Medical Specialist positions in
cases where the termination of medical specialists who failed to meet the
requirement for board certification might result in the disruption of hospital
services. Department Order No. 478 issued the following guidelines:
1. As a general policy, the provision of Department Order No. 347, Sec. 4 shall
apply unless the Chief of Hospital requests for
_______________
6 Id., at p. 43; Annex G.
7 Id., at p. 5.
8 Id.
146
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
exemption, certifies that its application will result in the disruption of the
delivery service together with the steps taken to implement Section 4, and
submit a plan of action, lasting no more than 3-years, for the eventual phase out
of non-Board certified medical specialists.
2. Medical specialists recommended for extension of appointment shall meet the
following minimum criteria:
a. DOH medical specialist certified
b. Has been in the service of the Department at least three (3) years prior to
December 1988
c. Has applied or taken the specialty board examination.
3. Each recommendation for extension of appointment must be individually
justified to show not only the qualification of the recommendee, but also what
steps he has taken to be board certified.
4. Recommendation for extension of appointment shall be evaluated on a case
to case basis.

5. As amended, the other provisions of Department Order No. 34/s. 1988 stands.
Petitioner was one of the hundreds of government medical specialists who would
have been adversely affected by Department Order No. 347 since he was not
yet accredited by the Psychiatry Specialty Board. Under Department Order No.
478, extension of his appointment remained subject to the guidelines set by the
said department order. On August 22, 1991, after reviewing petitioners service
record and performance, the Medical Credentials Committee of the National
Center for Mental Health recommended non-renewal of his appointment as
Medical Specialist I, informing him of its decision on August 22,1991. He was,
however, allowed to continue in the service, and receive his salary, allowances
and other benefits even after being informed of the termination of his
appointment.
On November 25, 1991, an emergency meeting of the Chiefs of Service was held
to discuss, among other matters, the petitioners case. In the said meeting Dr.
Vismindo de Grecia, petitioners immediate supervisor, pointed out petitioners
poor performance, frequent tardiness and inflexibility as among the factors
responsible for the recommendation not to renew his appointment.9 With one
exception, other department heads present in the
_______________
9 Id., at p. 100, Annex 2.
147
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
147
Felix vs. Buenaseda
meeting expressed the same opinion,10 and the overwhelming concensus was
for non-renewal. The matter was thereafter referred to the Civil Service
Commission, which on February 28, 1992 ruled that the temporary appointment
(of petitioner) as Medical Specialist I can be terminated at any time . . . and
that [a]ny renewal of such appointment is within the discretion of the
appointing authority.11 Consequently, in a memorandum dated March 25, 1992
petitioner was advised by hospital authorities to vacate his cottage since he was
no longer entitled to accommodation. Refusing to comply with said
memorandum petitioner filed a petition with the Merit System Protection Board
(MSPB) complaining about the alleged harassment by respondents and
questioning the non-renewal of his appointment. In a Decision rendered on July
29, 1992, the (MSPB) dismissed petitioners complaint for lack of merit, finding
that:
As an apparent incident of the power to appoint, the renewal of a temporary
appointment upon or after its expiration is a matter largely addressed to the
sound discretion of the appointing authority. In this case, there is no dispute that
Complainant was a temporary employee and his appointment expired on August
22, 1991. This being the case, his re-appointment to his former position or the
renewal of his temporary appointment would be determined solely by the proper
appointing authority who is the Secretary, Department of Health upon the
favorable recommendation of the Chief of Hospital III, NCMH. The Supreme Court

in the case of Central Bank vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. Nos. 8045556
dated April 10, 1989, held as follows:
The power of appointment is essentially a political question involving
considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.
In this light, Complainant therefore, has no basis in law to assail the non-renewal
of his expired temporary appointment much less invoke the aid of this board for
that purpose since this Board cannot substitute its judgment to that of the
appointing authority nor direct the latter to issue an appointment in the
complainants favor.
Regarding the alleged Department Order secured by the complainant from the
Department of Health (DOH), the Board finds the same inconsequential. Said
Department Order merely allowed the extension of tenure of Medical Specialist I
for a certain period but does
_______________
10 Id., at 100104.
11 CSC Resolution No. 92347, February 28, 1992.
148
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
not mandate the renewal of the expired appointment.
The Board likewise finds as baseless complainants allegation of harassment. It
should be noted that the subsistence, quarters and laundry benefits provided to
the Complainant were in connection with his employment with the NCMH. Now
that his employment ties with the said agency are severed, he eventually loses
his right to the said benefits. Hence, the Hospital Management has the right to
take steps to prevent him from the continuous enjoyment thereof, including the
occupancy of the said cottage, after his cessation from office.
In sum, the actuations of Dr. Buenaseda and Lt. Col. Balez are not shown to have
been tainted with any legal infirmity, thus rendering as baseless, this instant
complaint.
Said decision was appealed to the Civil Service Commission which dismissed the
same in its Resolution dated December 1, 1992. Motion for Reconsideration was
denied in CSC Resolution No. 93677 dated February 3, 1993, hence this appeal,
in which petitioner interposes the following assignments of errors:
I
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
BY SUBMITTING HIS COURTESY RESIGNATION AND ACCEPTING HIS TEMPORARY
APPOINTMENT PETITIONER HAD EFFECTIVELY DIVESTED HIMSELF OF HIS
SECURITY OF TENURE, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCH COURTESY
RESIGNATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT.
II

THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE

CONVERSION OF THE PERMANENT APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER TO TEMPORARY
WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH IN THE GUISE OF REORGANIZATION AND THUS INVALID,
BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE PETITIONERS RIGHT OF SECURITY OF TENURE.
Responding to the instant petition,12 the Solicitor General contends that 1) the
petitioners temporary appointments after
_______________
12 See, COMMENT, p. 77, Rollo.
149
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
149
Felix vs. Buenaseda
the reorganization pursuant to E.O. No. 119 were valid and did not violate his
constitutional right to security of tenure;13 2) petitioner is guilty of estoppel or
laches, having acquiesced to such temporary appointments from 1988 to
1991;14 and 3) the respondent Commission did not act with grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the petitioners non-renewal of his appointment at the
National Center for Mental Health.15
We agree.
The patent absurdity of petitioners posture is readily obvious. A residency or
resident physician position in a medical specialty is never a permanent one.
Residency connotes training and temporary status. It is the step taken by a
physician right after post-graduate internship (and after hurdling the Medical
Licensure Examinations) prior to his recognition as a specialist or sub-specialist
in a given field.
A physician who desires to specialize in Cardiology takes a required three-year
accredited residency in Internal Medicine (four years in DOH hospitals) and
moves on to a two or threeyear fellowship or residency in Cardiology before he is
allowed to take the specialty examinations given by the appropriate accrediting
college. In a similar manner, the accredited Psychiatrist goes through the same
stepladder process which culminates in his recognition as a fellow or diplomate
(or both) of the Psychiatry Specialty Board.16 This upward movement from
residency to specialist rank, institutionalized in the residency training process,
guarantees minimum standards and skills and ensures that the physician
claiming to be a specialist will not be set loose on the community without the
basic knowledge and skills of his specialty, Because acceptance and promotion
requirements are stringent, competitive, and based on merit, acceptance to a
first year residency program is no guaranty that
_______________
13 Id., at 85.
14 Id., at 87.
15 Id., at 91.
16 In most government teaching hospitals, the old and virtually permanent
resident-physician/senior-resident physician classification or staffing system has

given way to a stepladder program (patterned after residency programs in the

United States) where resident physicians move on from one postgraduate
residency year to the next.
150
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
the physician will complete the program. Attrition rates are high. Some programs
are pyramidal. Promotion to the next postgraduate year is based on merit and
performance determined by periodic evaluations and examinations of
knowledge, skills and bedside manner.17 Under this system, residents, specially
those in university teaching hospitals18 enjoy their right to security of tenure
only to the extent that they periodically make the grade, making the situation
quite unique as far as physicians undergoing post-graduate residencies and
fellowships are concerned. While physicians (or consultants) of specialist rank
are not subject to the same stringent evaluation procedures,19 specialty
societies require continuing education as a requirement for accreditation in good
standing, in addition to peer review processes based on performance, mortality
and morbidity audits, feedback from residents, interns and medical students and
research output.
_______________
17 In fact, some specialties like the Philippine College of Physicians (through its
Specialty Board of Internal Medicine) have began to require residents to take
accreditation examinations conducted by the college every year as a
requirement for promotion. Program accreditation of residency programs is
based on passing/attrition rates in these examinations, providing a steady
impetus for maintaining standards set by the college.
18 The principal university teaching hospitals in Metro Manila include the UPPGH, the UST Medical Center, the UERMMMC Hospital and the FEUNRMF.
Government hospitals with a reputation for exacting residency programs include
the Philippine Heart Center for Asia, the National Kidney Institute, and the
National Orthopedic Hospital. Their reputations in this area are based on the
consistent performance of their residents in various specialty board
examinations, the quality of training specialists and consultants, and research
output.
19 With the exception of the Department of Health, which has both permanent
and temporary specialists on either a part-time or fulltime basis, consultants in
most of the large hospitals and medical centers are not really employees of
these hospitals. Large medical centers like the MCM, Makati Medical Center, etc.,
require purchase of a minimum number of stocks (usually exceeding P
100,000.00) as a prerequisite for attaining attending physician status.
Acceptance is, moreover, highly selective, based on the quality of the
applicants residency training program and school graduated from. Board
certification is a universal requirement. In 1988, the DOH made board
certification a requirement for renewal of specialist positions.

151
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
151
Felix vs. Buenaseda
The nature of the contracts of resident physicians meet traditional tests for
determining employer-employee relationships, but because the focus of
residency is training, they are neither here nor there. Moreover, stringent
standards and requirements for renewal of specialist-rank positions or for
promotion to the next post-graduate residency year are necessary because lives
are ultimately at stake.
Petitioners insistence on being reverted back to the status quo prior to the
reorganizations made pursuant to Executive Order No. 119 would therefore be
akin to a college student asking to be sent back to high school and staying
there. From the position of senior resident physician, which he held at the time
of the government reorganization, the next logical step in the stepladder process
was obviously his promotion to the rank of Medical Specialist I, a position which
he apparently accepted not only because of the increase in salary and rank but
because of the prestige and status which the promotion conferred upon him in
the medical community. Such status, however, clearly carried with it certain
professional responsibilities including the responsibility of keeping up with the
minimum requirements of specialty rank, the responsibility of keeping abreast
with current knowledge in his specialty and in Medicine in general, and the
responsibility of completing board certification requirements within a reasonable
period of time. The evaluation made by petitioners peers and superiors clearly
showed that he was deficient in a lot of areas, in addition to the fact that at the
time of his non-renewal, he was not even board-certified.
It bears emphasis that at the time of petitioners promotion to the position of
Medical Specialist I (temporary) in August of 1988, no objection was raised by
him about the change of position or the temporary nature of the designation.
The pretense of objecting to the promotion to specialist rank apparently came
only as an afterthought, three years later, following the nonrenewal of his
position by the Department of Health.
We lay stress to the fact that petitioner made no attempt to oppose earlier
renewals of his temporary Specialist I contracts in 1989 and 1990, clearly
demonstrating his acquiescence toif not his unqualified acceptance ofthe
promotion (albeit of a temporary nature) made in 1988. Whatever objections
petitioner had against the earlier change from the status of permanent senior
resident
152
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Felix vs. Buenaseda
physician to temporary senior resident physician were neither pursued nor
mentioned at or after his designation as Medical Specialist I (Temporary). He is
therefore estopped from insisting upon a right or claim which he had plainly

abandoned when he, from all indications, enthusiastically accepted the

promotion. His negligence to assert his claim within a reasonable time, coupled
with his failure to repudiate his promotion to a temporary position, warrants a
presumption, in the words of this Court in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy,20 that he
either abandoned (his claim) or declined to assert it.
There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience which demand that
any claim to any position in the civil service, permanent, temporary or
otherwise, or any claim to a violation of the constitutional provision on security
of tenure be made within a reasonable period of time. An assurance of some
degree of stability in the civil service is necessary in order to avoid needless
disruptions in the conduct of public business. Delays in the statement of a right
to any position are strongly discouraged.21 In the same token, the failure to
assert a claim or the voluntary acceptance of another position in government,
obviously without reservation, leads to a presumption that the civil servant has
either given up his claim or has already settled into the new position. This is the
essence of laches which is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could
or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.22
In fine, this petition, on its surface, seems to be an ordinary challenge against
the validity of the conversion of petitioners position from permanent resident
physician status to that of a temporary resident physician pursuant to the
government reorganization after the EDSA Revolution. What is unique to
_______________
20 23 SCRA 35 (1968).
21 Unabia v. City Mayor, 99 Phil. 253, 257 (1956).
22 Cristobal v. Melchor, 78 SCRA 175, 182 (1977), citing Tijam, supra, note 19.
153
VOL. 240, JANUARY 17, 1995
153
Felix vs. Buenaseda
petitioners averments is the fact that he hardly attempts to question the
validity of his removal from his position of Medical Specialist I (Temporary) of the
National Center for Mental Health, which is plainly the pertinent issue in the case
at bench. The reason for this is at once apparent, for there is a deliberate and
dishonest attempt to skirt the fundamental issue first, by falsely claiming that
petitioner was forced to submit his courtesy resignation in 1987 when he
actually did not; and second, by insisting on a right of claim clearly abandoned
by his acceptance of the position of Medical Specialist I (temporary), which is
hence barred by laches.
The validity of the government reorganization of the Ministry of Health pursuant
to E.O. 119 not being the real issue in the case at bench, we decline to make any
further pronouncements relating to petitioners contentions relating to the effect
on him of the reorganization except to say that in the specific case of the change

in designation from permanent resident physician to temporary resident

physician, a change was necessary, overall, to rectify a ludicrous situation
whereby some government resident physicians were erroneously being classified
as permanent resident physicians in spite of the inherently temporary nature of
the designation. The attempts by the Department of Health not only to
streamline these positions but to make them conform to current standards of
specialty practice is a step in a positive direction. The patient who consults with
a physician of specialist rank should at least be safe in the assumption that the
government physician of specialist rank: 1.) has completed all necessary
requirements of specialist training in his field; and 2.) has been board certified.
These fundamental requirements at least assure the public at large that those in
government centers who claim to be specialists in specific areas of Medicine
possess the minimum knowledge and skills required to fulfill that first and
foremost maxim, embodied in the Hippocratic Oath, that they do their patients
no harm. Primium non nocere.
Finally, it is crystal clear, from the facts of the case at bench, that the petitioner
accepted a temporary appointment (Medical Specialist I). As respondent Civil
Service Commission has correctly pointed out,23 the appointment was for a
definite and renewable
_______________

23 Rollo, p. 22; Annex A.

154
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Guillermo vs. Reyes, Jr.
period which, when it was not renewed, did not involve a dismissal but an
expiration of the petitioners term.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Note.It is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical
profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily
entrust their lives and health. (Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs.
San Diego, 180 SCRA 533 [1989])
o0o [Felix vs. Buenaseda, 240 SCRA 139(1995)]