G.R. No. 194994. April 16, 2013.

*
EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs.EMERSON S. CARLOS, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Hierarchy of Courts; Settled is the rule that “the
Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.” A disregard
of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.
A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special
and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition.—Although
Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but is concurrent
with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court and does not give petitioner
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The hierarchy of courts must be strictly
observed. Settled is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter
and immemorial tradition.” A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a
rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is
allowed only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically
set forth in a petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of preventing
(1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of the Court’s
docket.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Quo Warranto; Words and Phrases; A petition for quo
warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to use or exercise a franchise or an
office and to oust the holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if
his right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited.—“A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding
to determine the right of a
_______________
* EN BANC.

401

VOL. 696, 401

APRIL 16, 2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
person to use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the
enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to enjoy the privilege has
been forfeited.” Where the action is filed by a private person, in his own name, he must prove
that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise, respondent has a right to the
undisturbed possession of the office.
Civil Service; Career Service; Career service is characterized by the existence of security
of tenure, as contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure is coterminous with
that of the appointing authority; or subject to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period
specified by law or to the duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment
was made.—Executive Order No. (E.O.) 292, otherwise known as The Revised Administrative
Code of 1987, provides for two classifications of positions in the civil service: career and non-
career. Career service is characterized by the existence of security of tenure, as
contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure is coterminous with that of the
appointing authority; or subject to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period specified by
law or to the duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment was made.
Applying the foregoing distinction to the instant case, this Court finds that an AGMO holds
a career position, considering that the MMDA Charter specifically provides that AGMs enjoy
security of tenure—the core characteristic of a career service, as distinguished from a non-
career service position.
Same; Same; Career Executive Service (CES); Two Elements Required for a Position to
be Considered as Career Executive Service (CES).—In sum, there are two elements required
for a position to be considered as CES: 1) The position is among those enumerated under
Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 OR a
position of equal rank as those enumerated and identified by the CESB to be such position of
equal rank; AND 2) The holder of the position is a presidential appointee. Records show that
in reply to Chairperson Tolentino’s query on whether the positions of general manager and
AGM of the MMDA are covered by the CES, the CESB—thru Executive Director Allones—
categorically stated that these positions are not among those covered by the CES. Upon
petitioner’s separate inquiry on the matter, the CESB similarly responded that the AGMO’s
position could not be considered as belonging to the CES. Additionally, Executive Director
Allones said that petitioner was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.402

402 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
Same; Same; Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO); An Assistant General
Manager for Operations (AGMO) performs functions that are managerial in character;
exercises management over people, resource, and/or policy; and assumes functions like
planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and overseeing the activities of
Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).—An AGMO performs functions that are
managerial in character; exercises management over people, resource, and/or policy; and
assumes functions like planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and
overseeing the activities of MMDA. The position requires the application of managerial or
supervisory skills necessary to carry out duties and responsibilities involving functional
guidance, leadership, and supervision. For the foregoing reasons, the position of AGMO is
within the coverage of the CES.
Same; Same; Positions in the career service, for which appointments require
examinations, are grouped into three major levels.—Positions in the career service, for which
appointments require examinations, are grouped into three major levels: Sec. 8. Classes of
positions in the Career Service.—(1) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to
which requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows: (a) The first
level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and custodial service positions which involve non-
professional or sub-professional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring
less than four years of collegiate studies; (b) The second level shall include professional,
technical, and scientific positions which involve professional, technical or scientific work in a
non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to
Division Chief levels; and (c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career
Executive Service. Entrance to different levels requires corresponding civil service
eligibilities. Those at the third level (CES positions) require career service executive
eligibility (CSEE) as a requirement for permanent appointment.
 Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Quo Warranto; In a quo warranto proceeding, the
person suing must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by
another. Absent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed
usurper is immaterial.—It is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by
another non-CESO eligible. In a quo warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that
he has a clear
403

VOL. 696, 403

APRIL 16, 2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of that right,
the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Quo Warranto.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Bernardino P. Salvador, Jr. for petitioner.
Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno for respondent.
SERENO, C.J.:
Before us is a Petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66
filed by Emmanuel A. de Castro (petitioner) seeking to oust respondent Emerson S.
Carlos (respondent) from the position of assistant general manager for operations
(AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
On 29 July 2009, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed petitioner as
AGMO.1 His appointment was concurred in by the members of the Metro Manila
Council in MMDA Resolution No. 09-10, Series of 2009.2 He took his oath on 17
August 2009 before then Chairperson Bayani F. Fernando.3
Meanwhile, on 29 July 2010, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued Office of
the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 2010, amending OP
Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2010.
OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 states:
2. All non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESO) occupying Career Executive
Service (CES) positions in all agencies of
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 21.
2 Id., at pp. 23-24.
3 Id., at p. 22.

404

404 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
the executive branch shall remain in office and continue to perform their duties and discharge
their responsibility until October 31, 2010 or until their resignations have been accepted
and/or until their respective replacements have been appointed or designated, whichever
comes first, unless they are reappointed in the meantime.4
 On 30 July 2010, Atty. Francis N. Tolentino, chairperson of the MMDA, issued
Office Order No. 106,5designating Corazon B. Cruz as officer-in-charge (OIC) of the
Office of the AGMO. Petitioner was then reassigned to the Legal and Legislative
Affairs Office, Office of the General Manager. The service vehicle and the office space
previously assigned to him were withdrawn and assigned to other employees.
Subsequently, on 2 November 2010, Chairperson Tolentino designated respondent
as OIC of the Office of the AGMO by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 24,6which in
turn cited OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 as basis. Thereafter, the name of
petitioner was stricken off the MMDA payroll, and he was no longer paid his salary
beginning November 2010.
Petitioner sought a clarification7 from the Career Executive Service Board (CESB)
as to the proper classification of the position of AGMO. In her reply, 8 Executive
Director Maria Anthonette Allones (Executive Director Allones), CESO I, stated that
the position of AGMO had not yet been classified and could not be considered as
belonging to the Career Executive Service (CES). She further stated that a perusal of
the appointment papers of petitioner showed that he was not holding a coterminous
position. In sum, she said, he was not covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1
and 2.
Petitioner was later offered the position of Director IV of MMDA Public Health
and Safety Services and/or MMDA
_______________
4 Id., at p. 8.
5 Id., at p. 26.
6 Id., at p. 30.
7 Id., at pp. 31-32, Letter dated 5 November 2010.
8 Id., at pp. 33-34, Letter dated 12 November 2010.

405
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 405
2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
consultant. He turned down the offer, claiming that it was a demotion in rank.
Demanding payment of his salary and reinstatement in the monthly
payroll,9petitioner sent a letter on 5 December 2010 to Edenison Faisan, assistant
general manager (AGM) for Finance and Administration; and Lydia Domingo,
Director III, Administrative Services. For his failure to obtain an action or a response
from MMDA, he then made a formal demand for his reinstatement as AGMO through
a letter addressed to the Office of the President on 17 December 2010.10
However, on 4 January 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III (President Aquino)
appointed respondent as the new AGMO of the MMDA.11 On 10 January 2011, the
latter took his oath of office.
Hence, the instant Petition.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing respondent, filed its
Comment on 19 August 2011.12 However, upon motion of petitioner, it was
disqualified from representing respondent. Thus, a private law firm13entered an
appearance as counsel for respondent and adopted the Comment filed by the OSG.14
 Petitioner filed his Reply on 17 November 2011.
Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for the consideration of this Court:
15

_______________
9 Id., at pp. 42-44.
10 Id., at pp. 45-56.
11 Id., at p. 57.
12 Id., at pp. 111-129.
13 Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno.
14 Entry of Appearance (With Prayer to Adopt Comment dated 13 September 2011).
15 Id., at pp. 14-15.

406
406 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
(1) Whether respondent Emerson S. Carlos was validly appointed by President
Aquino to the position of AGMO of the MMDA;
(2) Whether petitioner Emmanuel A. de Castro is entitled to the position of AGMO;
and
(3) Whether or not respondent should pay petitioner the salaries and financial
benefits he received during his illegal tenure as AGMO of the MMDA.

The Court’s Ruling

Petitioner contends that Section 2(3), Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution
guarantees the security of tenure of employees in the civil service. He further argues
that his appointment as AGMO is not covered by OP Memorandum Circular No. 2,
since it is not a CES position as determined by the CESB.
On the other hand, respondent posits that the AGMO position belongs to the CES;
thus, in order to have security of tenure, petitioner, must be a Career Executive
Service official (CESO). Respondent maintains that the function of an AGM is
executive and managerial in nature. Thus, considering that petitioner is a non-CESO
occupying a CES position, he is covered by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondent likewise raises the issue of procedural infirmity in the direct recourse to
the Supreme Court by petitioner, who thereby failed to adhere to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
Hierarchy of Courts
As to the procedural issue, petitioner submits that a direct recourse to this Court
is warranted by the urgent demands of public interest, particularly the veritable need
for stability in the civil service and the protection of the rights of civil servants.
Moreover, considering that no other than the President of the Philippines is the
appointing authority, petitioner
407
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 407
2013
 De Castro vs. Carlos
doubts if a trial court judge or an appellate court justice, with a prospect of promotion
in the judiciary would be willing to go against a presidential appointment.
Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides
that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this
Court is not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional
trial court and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum.16 The hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
Settled is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental
charter and immemorial tradition.”17 A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.18
A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are
special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a
petition.19 The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of preventing (1)
inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted
to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of the
Court’s docket.20
_______________
16 Capalla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 201112, 201121, 201127, 201413, 13 June 2012, 673
SCRA 1.
17 Vergara Sr. v. Suelto, 240 Phil. 719, 732; 156 SCRA 753, 766 (1987).
18 Lacson Hermanas, Inc. v. Heirs of Ignacio, 500 Phil. 673, 676; 462 SCRA 290, 293 (2005).
19 Ouano v. PGTT, 434 Phil. 28, 34; 384 SCRA 589, 593 (2002).
20 Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 27 January 1993, 217 SCRA 633; and People v. Cuaresma,
254 Phil. 418, 427; 172 SCRA 415, 424 (1989).

408
408 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
In this case, petitioner justified his act of directly filing with this Court only when
he filed his Reply and after respondent had already raised the procedural infirmity
that may cause the outright dismissal of the present Petition. Petitioner likewise cites
stability in the civil service and protection of the rights of civil servants as rationale
for disregarding the hierarchy of courts.
Petitioner’s excuses are not special and important circumstances that would allow
a direct recourse to this Court. More so, mere speculation and doubt to the exercise
of judicial discretion of the lower courts are not and cannot be valid justifications to
hurdle the hierarchy of courts. Thus, the Petition must be dismissed.
Nature of the AGMO Position
Even assuming that petitioner’s direct resort to this Court is permissible, the
Petition must still be dismissed for lack of merit.
 “A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to
use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the enjoyment,
thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to enjoy the privilege has been
forfeited.”21 Where the action is filed by a private person, in his own name, he must
prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise, respondent has a
right to the undisturbed possession of the office.22
The controversy arose from the issuance of OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and
2, which applies to all non-CESO’s occupying CES positions in all agencies of the
executive branch. Petitioner, being a non-CESO, avers that he is not covered by these
OP memoranda considering that the AGMO of the MMDA is a non-CES position.
_______________
21 Mendoza v. Allas, 362 Phil. 238, 244; 302 SCRA 623, 628 (1999).
22 Id.

409
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 409
2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
In order to settle the controversy, there is a need to determine the nature of the
contentious position of AGMO of the MMDA.
Career vs. non-career
Section 4 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7924,23 otherwise known as the MMDA
Charter, specifically created the position of AGMO. It reads as follows:
Sec. 4. Metro Manila Council. x x x.
xxxx
The Council shall be headed by a Chairman, who shall be appointed by the President and
who shall continue to hold office at the discretion of the appointing authority. He shall be
vested with the rank, rights, privileges, disqualifications, and prohibitions of a Cabinet
member.
The Chairman shall be assisted by a General Manager, an Assistant General Manager
for Finance and Administration, an Assistant General Manager for Planning and
an Assistant General Manager for Operations, all of whom shall be appointed by
the President with the consent and concurrence of the majority of the Council,
subject to civil service laws and regulations. They shall enjoy security of tenure
and may be removed for cause in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied)

Executive Order No. (E.O.) 292, otherwise known as The Revised Administrative
Code of 1987, provides for two classifications of positions in the civil service: career
and non-career.24
_______________
23 An Act Creating The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining Its Powers And
Functions, Providing Funding Therefor And For Other Purposes.
24 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 6.

410
410 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 De Castro vs. Carlos
Career service is characterized by the existence of security of tenure,25 as
contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure is coterminous with that
of the appointing authority; or subject to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a period
specified by law or to the duration of a particular project for which purpose the
appointment was made.26
Applying the foregoing distinction to the instant case, this Court finds that an
AGMO holds a career position, considering that the MMDA Charter specifically
provides that AGMs enjoy security of tenure—the core characteristic of a career
service, as distinguished from a non-career service position.
CES vs. non-CES
Career service includes the following:
(1) Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate
examination is required;
(2) Closed Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in nature; these
include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and scientific and
technical positions in scientific or research institutions which shall establish and maintain
their own merit systems;
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other
officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service
Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;
(4) Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, who are appointed
by the President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs;
_______________
25 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 7.
26 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 9.

411

VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 411

2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
(5) Commissioned officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a
separate merit system;
(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing
governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career service; and
(7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled.27 (Emphasis
supplied)

In Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals and PCSO,28 the Court clarified
the positions covered by the CES:
Thus, from the long line of cases cited above, in order for a position to be covered by the
CES, two elements must concur. First, the position must either be (1) a position
enumerated under Book V, Title I, Subsection A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the
Administrative Code of 1987, i.e., Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional
Director, Chief of Department Service, or (2) a position of equal rank as those
enumerated, and identified by the Career Executive Service Board to be such
position of equal rank.Second, the holder of the position must be a presidential
appointee.Failing in any of these requirements, a position cannot be considered as one
covered by the third-level or CES. (Emphasis supplied)

In sum, there are two elements required for a position to be considered as CES:
1) The position is among those enumerated under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A,
Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 OR a position of
equal rank as those enumerated and identified by the CESB to be such position
of equal rank; AND
2) The holder of the position is a presidential appointee.
_______________
27 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 7.
28 G.R. Nos. 185766 and 185767, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 749, 765.

412
412 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
Records show that in reply29 to Chairperson Tolentino’s query on whether the
positions of general manager and AGM of the MMDA are covered by the CES,30 the
CESB—thru Executive Director Allones—categorically stated that these positions
are not among those covered by the CES.
Upon petitioner’s separate inquiry on the matter,31 the CESB similarly responded
that the AGMO’s position could not be considered as belonging to the
CES.32 Additionally, Executive Director Allones said that petitioner was not covered
by OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2, to wit:
A cursory perusal of your appointment papers would show that it does not bear any indication
that you are holding a coterminous appointment. Neither your position as AGMO can be
considered as created in excess of the authorized staffing pattern since RA 7924, the law that
created the MMDA clearly provided for such position. As further stated above, your position
will not fall under paragraph No. 2 of OP MC 1 because it is not yet considered as belonging
to the CES. Hence, we posit that you are not covered by OP MC 1 and 2.33

However, contrary to Executive Director Allones’ statement, the CESB, through

Resolution No. 799 already declared certain positions meeting the criteria set therein
as embraced within the CES.
It is worthy of note that CESB Resolution No. 799 was issued on 19 May 2009,
even prior to petitioner’s appointment on 29 July 2009. Moreover, as early as 31 May
1994, the above classification was already embodied in CSC Resolution No. 34-2925,
circularized in CSC Memorandum Circular 21, Series of 1994.
_______________
29 Rollo, p. 41, Letter dated 8 September 2010.
30 Id., at pp. 35-40, Letter dated 28 August 2010.
31 Supra at note 6.
32 Supra at note 7.
33 Id., at p. 34.
 413
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 413
2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
Resolution No. 799 classified the following positions as falling within the coverage
of the CES:
a. The Career Executive Service includes the positions of Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director (department-wide and bureau-wide),
Assistant Regional Director (department-wide and bureau-wide), and Chief of Department Service;
b. Unless provided otherwise, all other managerial or executive positions in the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters are embraced within the CES
provided that they meet the following criteria:
i.) The position is a career position;
ii.) The position is above division chief level; and,
iii.) The duties and responsibilities of the position require performance of executive and
managerial functions.

Without a doubt, the AGMO position is not one of those enumerated in the above-
cited paragraph(a) but it clearly falls under paragraph(b) considering that it belongs
to a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter. The
nature of AGMO is clear from the provisions of the MMDA Charter.
First, we have already determined that an AGMO is a career position that enjoys
security of tenure by virtue of the MMDA Charter.
Second, it is undisputed that the position of AGMO is above the division chief level,
which is equivalent to the rank of assistant secretary with Salary Grade 29.34
_______________
34 Rollo, p. 123, Comment.

414
414 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
Third, a perusal of the MMDA Charter readily reveals that the duties and
responsibilities of the position require the performance of executive and managerial
functions.
Section 12.4, Rule IV of the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7924
provides the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of an AGMO, as follows:
12.4 Assistant General Manager for Operations
The Assistant General Manager for Operations shall perform the following
functions:
a. Establish a mechanism for coordinating and operationalizing the delivery
of metro-wide basic services;
b. Maintain a monitoring system for the effective evaluation of the
implementation of approved policies, plans and programs for the
development of Metropolitan Manila;
 c. Mobilize the participation of local government units, executive
departments or agencies of the national government, and the private
sector in the delivery of metrowide services; and
d. Operate a central radio communication system.
He shall perform such other duties as are incidental or related to the above
functions or as may be assigned from time to time.
An AGMO performs functions that are managerial in character; exercises
management over people, resource, and/or policy; and assumes functions like
planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and overseeing the
activities of MMDA. The position requires the application of managerial or
supervisory skills necessary to carry out duties and responsibilities involving
functional guidance, leadership, and supervision.
For the foregoing reasons, the position of AGMO is within the coverage of the
CES.415
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 415
2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
In relation thereto, positions in the career service, for which appointments require
examinations, are grouped into three major levels:35
Sec. 8. Classes of positions in the Career Service.—(1) Classes of positions in the career
service appointment to which requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels
as follows:
(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts and custodial service positions
which involve non-professional or sub-professional work in a non-supervisory or
supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies;
(b) The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions
which involve professional, technical or scientific work in a non-supervisory or
supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief
levels; and
(c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service.
(Emphasis supplied)

Entrance to different levels requires corresponding civil service

eligibilities.36 Those at the third level (CES positions) require career service executive
eligibility (CSEE) as a requirement for permanent appointment.37
Evidently, an AGMO should possess all the qualifications required by third-level
career service within the CES. In this case, petitioner does not have the required
eligibility. Therefore, we find that his appointment to the position of AGMO was
merely temporary.
_______________
35 Administrative Code, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 8.
36 Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 485 Phil. 182, 204; 442 SCRA 507, 527 (2004).
37 Memorandum Circular 37, s. 1998, dated 20 October 1998; Memorandum Circular 1, s. 1997, dated
24 January 1997.

416
416 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
Amores v. Civil Service Commission38 is instructive as to the nature of temporary
appointments in the CES. The Court held therein that an appointee cannot hold a
position in a permanent capacity without the required CES eligibility:
We begin with the precept, firmly established by law and jurisprudence that a permanent
appointment in the civil service is issued to a person who has met the requirements of the
position to which the appointment is made in accordance with law and the rules issued
pursuant thereto. An appointment is permanent where the appointee meets all the
requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate
eligibility prescribed, and it is temporary where the appointee meets all the requirements for
the position except only the appropriate civil service eligibility.
xxxx
With particular reference to positions in the career executive service (CES), the requisite
civil service eligibility is acquired upon passing the CES examinations administered by the
CES Board and the subsequent conferment of such eligibility upon passing the examinations.
Once a person acquires eligibility, he either earns the status of a permanent appointee to the
CES position to which he has previously been appointed, or he becomes qualified for a
permanent appointment to that position provided only that he also possesses all the other
qualifications for the position. Verily, it is clear that the possession of the required CES
eligibility is that which will make an appointment in the career executive service a
permanent one. Petitioner does not possess such eligibility, however, it cannot be said that
his appointment to the position was permanent.
Indeed, the law permits, on many occasions, the appointment of non-CES eligibles to CES
positions in the government in the absence of appropriate eligibles and when there is
necessity in the interest of public service to fill vacancies in the government. But in all such
cases, the appointment is at best merely temporary as it is said to be conditioned on the
subsequent obtention of the required CES eligibility. This rule, according to De Leon v. Court
of Appeals, Dimayuga v. Benedicto, Caringal v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,
and Achacoso v. Macaraig, is invariable even though the
_______________
38 G.R. No. 170093, 29 April 2009, 587 SCRA 160, 167-169.

417

VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 417

2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
given appointment may have been designated as permanent by the appointing authority.
xxxx
Security of tenure in the career executive service, which presupposes a permanent
appointment, takes place upon passing the CES examinations administered by the CES
Board x x x.

Petitioner undisputedly lacked CES eligibility. Thus, he did not hold the position
of AGMO in a permanent capacity or acquire security of tenure in that position.
Otherwise stated, his appointment was temporary and “coterminus with the
appointing authority.”39 In Carillo v. CA,40 this Court ruled that “one who holds a
temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment can be
terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power, there being no need to show that
the termination is for cause.” Therefore, we find no violation of security of tenure
when petitioner was replaced by respondent upon the latter’s appointment to the
position of AGMO by President Aquino.
Even granting for the sake of argument that the position of AGMO is yet to be
classified by the CESB, petitioner’s appointment is still deemed coterminous
pursuant to CESB Resolution No. 945 issued on 14 June 2011, which reads:
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, the Supreme Court in the case of PCSO v. CSC,
G.R. No. 185766 and G.R. No. 185767 limited the coverage of positions belonging to
the CES to positions requiring Presidential appointments.
WHEREAS, in the same vein, CES positions have now become synonymous to third
level positions by virtue of the said ruling.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Board RESOLVES, as it is hereby
RESOLVED, to issue the following guide-
_______________
39 Ong v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 184219, 30 January 2012, 664 SCRA 413, 418-419.
40 167 Phil. 527, 533; 77 SCRA 170, 175 (1977).

418

418 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS
ANNOTATED
De Castro vs. Carlos
lines to clarify the policy on the coverage of CES and its classification:
1. For career service positions requiring Presidential appointments expressly
enumerated under Section 7(3), Chapter 2, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 namely: Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant
Regional Director, and Chief of Department Service, no classification of position
is necessary to place them under the coverage of the CES, except if they belong
to Project Offices, in which case a position classification is required, in
consultation with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
2. For positions requiring Presidential appointments other than those
enumerated above, a classification of positions is necessary which shall be
conducted by the Board, upon request of the head of office of the government
department/agency concerned, to place them under the coverage of the CES
provided they comply with the following criteria:
i.) The position is a career position;
ii.) The position is above division chief level; and,
iii.) The duties and responsibilities of the position require the performance
of executive and managerial functions.
All appointments to positions which have not been previously classified as
part of the CES would be deemed co-terminus with the appointing
authority. (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, considering that petitioner is an appointee of then President Arroyo
whose term ended on 30 June 2010, petitioner’s term of office was also deemed
terminated upon the assumption of President Aquino.
Likewise, it is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by another
non-CESO eligible. In a quo warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that
he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Ab-
419
VOL. 696, APRIL 16, 419
2013
De Castro vs. Carlos
sent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed
usurper is immaterial.41
All the foregoing considered, the petition merits an outright dismissal for
disregarding the hierarchy of courts and petitioner’s lack of cause of action against
respondent for failure to sufficiently show that he has undisturbed rights to the
position of AGMO of the MMDA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.—Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, a party should first file his
petition before the Court of Appeals before seeking relief from the Supreme Court.
(Dacanay vs. Yrastorza, Sr., 598 SCRA 20 [2009])
A strict application of the rule on hierarchy of courts may be excused when the
reason behind the rule is not present in a case, as in the present case, where the
issues are not factual but purely legal. (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 229 [2009])

——o0o——