ALFREDO B.

FELIX
vs.
DR. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA, in her capacity as Director, and ISABELO BAEZ, JR., in his capacity as Administrator, both of the National Center for
Mental Health, and the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/30/14 10:07:12 PM
Finish: 6/30/14 11:12:53 PM
Nature of the Case
A direct appeal seeking to annul the Resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which Felix claims to be in violation of his
constitutional right to security of tenure.

Facts
Felix worked as Medical Specialist I for the government [National Center of Mental Health (NCMH)]. He started as a Resident Physician with
an annual salary. Later he got promoted to Senior Resident Physician [permanent], which he held for some time, and thereafter accepted the
appointment as Medical Specialist I [temporary] which Felix held for three years without remonstrations. Pursuant to an Executive Order
[EO No. 119] a general reorganization in the government ensued. In view of this, DoH effected a reorganization, and one of the guidelines
[DoH DO No. 478] made Felix unfit for the position [he was not yet accredited by the Psychiatry Specilaty Board]. His appointment was
extended pending review of the Medical Committee [of NCMH], which eventually recommended non-renewal of Felixs appointment and
informed him of the same. Nevertheless, Felix was still allowed to continue his service even after he was informed of his termination. The
Chief of Service [of NCMH] conducted an emergency to discuss, inter alia, Felixs performance. The overall consensus expressed non-
renewal of Felixs contract [due to poor performance, frequent tardiness and inflexibility]. The matter was referred to CSC which ruled that
appointment of Felix can be terminated at any time and that renewal was within the discretion of the appointing authority [NCMH] by virtue of
the incidental power of the power to appoint [the power to renew a temporary appointment] and further. The removal of Felix has thus been
affirmed by CSC. Felixs appeal was dismissed and his subsequent motion for reconsideration has been denied by CSC. Petitioner now
questions the validity of such removal. Hence, this direct appeal.


Issue(s)
(1). Is the position held by Felix as Resident Physician a permanent one?
(2). Is an employee, after not challenging his appointment from a permanent to a temporary position within a reasonable period,
deemed to have accepted his appointment?

Held
(1). No.

Residency is never meant to be a permanent position. It is a 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.

To specialize on a medical field [be it Psychiatry or Cardiology], one has to go through a stringent process. This process is to
guarantee the specialists minimum standards and skills which is an assurance to the community that a specialist is not set loose
without the basic knowledge and skills of his specialty as lives are ultimately at stake. The purpose is thus geared towards training
the resident physician.

(2). Yes.

Felixs acceptance as temporary Medical Specialist I for three years was subject to peer and superior evaluation, for which Felix fell
short. Regardless, Felix never questioned his temporary assignment [for three years] until DoH, as a result of his performance
evaluation, ordered non-renewal of his temporary position. In view of his silence to question his appointment from permanent to
temporary, warrants the presumption that Felix has either given up his claim or that he has already settled into the new position,
which is the concept of laches, which therefore estops him from questioning the same [three years later]. Stated otherwise, Felix
has abandoned his right to claim to question his conversion from permanent employee to temporary employee through laches, and
henceforth, is deemed to have accepted his appointment from permanent to temporary position.