VOL.

358, MAY 22, 2001 115

Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

*
G.R No. 138780. May 22, 2001.

NORBERTO ORCULLO, JR., petitioner, vs. CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION and COORDINATING
COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, respondents.

Civil Service Law; Nature of Employment; Termination;

PetitionerÊs employment with Coordinating Council of the
Philippine Assistance Program is contractual and co-terminous in
nature.·It is undisputed that petitionerÊs employment with
CCPAP is contractual and co-terminous in

_____________________

20 Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 339 (1997).

* EN BANC.

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

nature. Such a co-terminous employment falls under the non-

career service classification of positions in the Civil Service.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner serves at the pleasure of the
appointing authority as this is clearly stipulated in his
employment contract.·A perusal of petitionerÊs 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 courtÊs 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.‰
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; PetitionerÊs claim that he
was deprived of due process unavailing.·We find petitionerÊs
claim that he was deprived of due process unavailing. The Court
of Appeals found that petitioner was informed of his
unsatisfactory performance in his job as project manager about
two weeks prior to his termination. Thereafter, upon receipt of the
memorandum terminating his services, petitioner filed a
complaint-appeal to the CSC. When the CSC affirmed his
dismissal in its Resolution, dated April 2, 1997, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration thereof. Thus, he cannot now claim
that he was not given the opportunity to be heard.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Public AttorneyÊs Office for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Petitioner Norberto A. Orcullo, Jr. was hired as Project

Manager IV by the Coordinating Council of the Philippine
Assistance Program (CCPAP)-BOT Center effective March
11, 1996. His employment was contractual and co-
terminous with the said project which

117

VOL. 358, MAY 22, 2001 117

Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

1
was to end on January 30, 2000. On September 23, 1996 or
six (6) months from his assumption to office, petitioner
received a Memorandum, dated September 20, 1996, from
one Jorge M. Briones, Assistant Director of CCPAP,
terminating petitionerÊs contractual employment with said
 2
agency effective September 30, 1996.
In a Letter dated September 20, 1996, Undersecretary
Francisco F. del Rosario, Executive Director of CCPAP,
confirmed petitionerÊs termination as project manager of
CCPAP.
Aggrieved by his dismissal, petitioner appealed the same
to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
On April 2, 1997, the respondent CSC issued Resolution
No. 972309 dismissing petitionerÊs appeal. The CSC found
that:

x x x the appointment of Orcullo is contractual and coterminous

with the Philippine Assistance Program Support Project and that
it carries the stipulated condition „Unless terminated sooner.‰ The
latter condition has not been qualified by any safeguard.
Appellant Orcullo, when he accepted said contractual-coterminous
appointment, was aware that his services might be terminated
anytime. He is thus, not protected by the security of tenure clause
of the Constitution. The contract is the law between the parties.
And whatever is stipulated therein governs the relationship
between the parties. Said stipulations in the contract may include
the mode or manner of separations. And the causes therefore
includes and is not proscribed to derogatory record, misbehavior
or incompetence or hostile attitudes. In the instant case,
appellant was separated from the service particularly for
unsatisfactory performance. (Italics ours)
On the issue of the proper official who should effect such
termination, the next lower official of the Center may do so. In
this case, said separation was later validated by the confirmation
3
of the head office.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above

resolution, On June 17, 1997, the CSC denied said motion
in its Resolution No. 973099.
On July 30, 1997, petitioner, through counsel, filed a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

_________________

1Rollo, p. 40;
2Id., at 9.
3Id., at 46.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

On August 14, 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered a

decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition in the above entitled

case is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.
4
SO ORDERED.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the sole issue of

whether employees in the public service, regardless of their
status of employment, are protected by the tenurial
security right embodied in the Constitution.
Petitioner argues that, contrary to the findings of the
CSC, the phrase „unless terminated sooner‰ refers not to
the duration of his employment, but the duration of the
PAPS support project itself. He claims that since the PAPS
project was still ongoing, his services cannot be terminated
without just cause and without the observance of due
process. He asseverates that even co-terminous employees
like himself enjoy security of tenure as embodied in the
Constitution.
PetitionerÊs arguments are bereft of merit.
It is undisputed that petitionerÊs employment with
CCPAP is contractual and co-terminous in nature. Such a
co-terminous employment falls under the non-career
service classification of positions in the Civil Service:

Sec. 9. Non-Career Service.·The Non-Career Service shall be

characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of the
usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and
(2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is
coterminous with that of 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. (Italics ours)
The Non-Career Service shall include:

xxx
(4) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the
government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a

____________________

4 Id., at 61.

119
 VOL. 358, MAY 22, 2001 119
Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in

the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which
in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the
specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of
direction and supervision from the hiring agency.
5
xxx

Additionally, Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules

Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

Sec. 14. An appointment may also be co-terminous which shall be

issued to a person whose entrance and continuity in the service is
based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority or
that which is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his tenure,
or limited by the duration of project or subject to the availability of
funds. (italics ours)
The co-terminous status may thus be classified as follows:

(1) Co-terminous with the project·when the appointment is

coexistent with the duration of a particular project for
which purpose employment was made or subject to the
availability of funds for the same;
(2) Co-terminous with the appointing authority·when
appointment is co-existent with the tenure of the
appointing authority or at his pleasure; (Italics ours)
(3) Co-terminous with the incumbent·when the appointment
is co-existent with the appointee, in that after the
resignation, separation or termination of the services of
the incumbent the position shall be deemed automatically
abolished; and
(4) Co-terminous with a specific period·appointment is for a
specific period and upon expiration thereof, the position is
deemed abolished.

A perusal of petitionerÊs 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 courtÊs
interpretation of the phrase „unless terminated sooner„ to
mean ‰that his
_____________________

5 REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, SEC. 9 ON THE CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION.

120

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Orcullo, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

contractual job as Project Manager IV March 11, 1996 to

January 30, 2000 could end anytime before January 30,
2000 if terminated by the other contracting party-employer
CCPAP.‰ We quote with approval said courtÊs ruling on the
matter, thus:

x x x. The employment contract is written in plain and

unambiguous language. With petitionerÊs stature, he could not
have misunderstood it. Petitioner cannot now renege from the
stipulation invoking security of tenure under the Constitution and
the Civil Service Law. The fact is he belongs to the non-career
service whose appointment is co-terminous, meaning his entrance
and continuity in the service is based on trust and confidence of
6
the appointing power. (Italics ours)

Granting arguendo that said disputed phrase refers not to

the duration of petitionerÊs employment, but to the project
itself, nevertheless, petitioner was validly terminated for
cause. The records will show that petitioner garnered an
unsatisfactory7
rating during the probationary period of his
employment. After due notice, he was subsequently
dismissed because of his inability to work with the other
staff members of the project and to participate effectively in
meetings regarding the project, resulting in loss of trust in
him by his superiors. This much can be gleaned from the
Memorandum, dated September 20, 1996, sent by Mr.
Briones to the petitioner, which reads as follows:

This is to confirm my verbal advise to you made last 4 September

1996 regarding your unsatisfactory performance during the
probationary period, of your contractual employment with the
CCPAP BOT Center.
As advised, your inability to work with the other staff in the
Center as well as participate in outside meetings are the main
reasons for the rating which have resulted in the loss of my
confidence in your ability to do your job as a Manager. (Italics
supplied)
8
xxx

___________________

6 Rollo, p. 58.
7Id., at 41.
8Id.

121

VOL. 358, MAY 23, 2001 121

In Re: Loss of the Records of G.R. No. 126468 Entitled
Sonia Llamas-Tan vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Finally, we find petitionerÊs claim that he was deprived of

due process unavailing. The Court of Appeals found that
petitioner was informed of his unsatisfactory performance
in his job as project manager about two weeks prior to his
termination. Thereafter, upon receipt of the memorandum
terminating his services, petitioner filed a complaint-
appeal to the CSC. When the CSC affirmed his dismissal in
its Resolution, dated April 2, 1997, petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration thereof. Thus, he cannot now claim that
he was not given the opportunity to be heard.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and
Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.·Only the appointing officer can request

reconsideration of actions taken by the Civil Service
Commission on appointments. (Mathay, Jr. vs. Civil Service
Commission, 312 SCRA 91 [1999])

··o0o··
© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.