Designations
Digest: Tapispisan v. Court of Appeals (459 SCRA 695, 2005)
G.R.
NO. 157950 : June 8, 2005
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Tapispisan is a public school teacher and
has been occupying the position of Teacher III since September 1, 1992. She has
been teaching for the last thirty (30) years and is currently assigned at the
Villamor Air Base Elementary School in Pasay City.
On May 30, 1995, respondent Atty. Ricardo T. Sibug (Schools Division Superintendent, Pasay City) issued Division Memorandum No. 33 designating respondent Rumbaoa as OIC-Head Teacher of P. Villanueva Elementary School and respondent Teves as OIC-Principal of Don Carlos Elementary School, both schools are in Pasay City. Feeling that she had been unduly by-passed, petitioner Tapispisan filed with respondent Sibug a protest contesting such designation. The latter, however, denied the protest. The petitioner then brought the matter to respondent Dr. Nilo L. Rosas, Regional Director of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) for National Capital Region (NCR) who, likewise, denied the protest.
Issue: Respondent Court of Appeals committed serious error when it upheld the findings of the Civil Service Commission that protest will not lie in absence of appointment/promotion.
Ruling:
Yes. Indeed, there is a marked difference between an appointment and
a designation. The Court had the occasion to expound
the distinction in this wise:
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 of an incumbent official - .
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.
0 Comments