This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As can be gleaned, a coterminous employment falls under the non-career service classification of positions in the Civil Service,[39] its tenure being limited or specified by law, or coterminous with that of the appointing authority, or at the latter's pleasure. Under R.A. No. 9286 in relation to Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987,[40] the coterminous appointment of the General Manager of a water district is based on the majority vote of the BOD and whose continuity in the service is based on the latter's trust and confidence or co-existent with its tenure. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Notably, jurisprudence has it that the right to security of tenure is unavailing in certain instances. In Orcullo Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, [12] it was ruled that the right is not available to those employees whose appointments are contractual and co-terminous in nature. Such employment is characterized by "a tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or that which is coterminous with the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made."[13] In Amores M.D. v. Civil Service Commission, [14] it was held that a civil executive service appointee who meets all the requirements for the position, except only the appropriate civil service eligibility, holds the office in a temporary capacity and is, thus, not entitled to a security of tenure enjoyed by permanent appointees. | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has previously sustained the validity of dismissal of civil servants who serve at the pleasure of the appointing power and whose appointments are covered by Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 as cited above. Thus, in Orcullo, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission,[29] petitioner was hired as Project Manager IV by the Coordinating Council of the Philippine Assistance Program-BOT Center. In upholding the termination of his employment prior to the expiration of his contract, we held that petitioner serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority. This Court ruled in Orcullo A perusal of petitioner's employment contract will reveal that his employment with CCPAP is qualified by the phrase "unless terminated sooner." Thus, while such employment is co-terminous with the PAPS project, petitioner nevertheless serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority as this is clearly stipulated in his employment contract. We agree with the appellate court's interpretation of the phrase "unless terminated sooner" to mean "that his contractual job as Project Manager IV from March 11, 1996 to January 30, 2000 could end anytime before January 30, 2000 if terminated by the other contracting party-employer CCPAP. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||