Ma. Erly P. Erasmo vs.

Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation

Facts: Erly P. Erasmo started working with Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation in
1982 as a consultant on the Project Evaluation Department, and held various
positions therein from 1982-1992 until finally she was promoted to Vice President
Technical Service/ Guaranty and Credit Insurance Group in 1992. The nature of her
appointment was promotion and her employment status was temporary, since the
position is a Career Executive Service Office and she lacks the required CES
eligibility.
On February 24, 1993, petitioner was administratively charged with: 1) neglect of
duty, 2) incompetence in the performance of official duties, 3) conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, and 4) directly or indirectly having financial and
material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of her office.
In the meantime, petitioner appealed the status of her temporary appointment to
the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which on March 12, 1993 issued a resolution
No. 93-990, holding that a CES eligibility is required to a CES position, and even if
one possesses such eligibility, still the appointment cannot be considered
permanent unless an appointment to the rank has been granted by the President of
the Philippines.
HCIG informed her that her appointment is terminated and also advised her that the
pendency of the administrative charges precludes any renewal of her appointment
When the investigating committee of the HIGC recommended the dismissal of the
charges against petitioner, Erasmo asked that she be allowed to continue to
discharge her duties and responsibilities as VP for TS/GCIG. HIGC denied her
request.
Petitioner wrote CSC appealing her case, but the latter dismissed her appeal.
According to the CSC she is not protected by the security of tenure clause under the
Constitution because she was holding her position under a temporary status and the
appointing authority cannot generally be compelled to issue an appointment.
Issue: Whether or not a permanent civil service employee, like the petitioner who
worked with HIGC continuously for 12 years holding a permanent position and who
accepted a promotional appointment subject to her compliance of CSE which she
has duly complied with is still terminable at the pleasure and discretion of the
appointing officer.
Held: Yes, Erasmos appointment is temporary in nature. This is because petitioner
does not possess a career service eligibility which is necessary for the Vice
President of TS/GCIG position, it being a career service executive office. Her new
appointment being temporary in character, was terminable at the pleasure of the
appointing power with or without cause, and petitioner does not enjoy a security of
tenure.

Civil Service Commission vs Nita Javier

Facts: Nita Javier was first employed as private secretary in the GSIS on February
23, 1960, on a confidential status. In 1962, she was promoted to Tabulating
Equipment Operator with a permanent status. The permanent status stayed with
her throughout her career. She spent her entire career with GSIS, earning several
promotions, until in 1986 she was appointed as Corporate Secretary of the Board of
Trustees of the Corporation.
In July 2001, a month shy of her 64th birthday, she opted for an early retirement and
received the corresponding monetary benefits.
In April 2002, then GSIS President Winston Garcia, with the approval of the Board of
Trustees, reappointed Javier as Corporate Secretary, the same position she left and
retired from barely a year earlier. She was 64 at the time of her reappointment. In
its resolution, the Board of Trustees classified her appointment as confidential in
nature and the tenure of office is at the pleasure of the Board.
Civil Service Commission alleges that Javiers reappointment on confidential status
was meant to illegally extend her service and circumvent the laws on compulsory
retirement. This is because under R.A. 8291 the age for compulsory retirement age
for government employee is 65 years.
On October 10, 2002, CSC issued a resolution invalidating the reappointment of
Javier as Corporate Secretary, on the ground that the position is a permanent,
career position and not primarily confidential.
Javier and GSIS sought to reconsider the ruling of CSC. CSC replied that the position
of Corporate Secretary is a permanent career position, and not primarily
confidential; thus, it was wrong to appoint Javier to this position since she no longer
complied with eligibility requirements for a permanent career status. More
importantly, as respondent by then reached compulsory retirement, she is no longer
qualified for a permanent career position.
Issue: Whether or not the position Corporate Secretary in a Government Owned and
Controlled Corporation is primarily confidential in nature.
Held: The position of Corporate Secretary is primarily confidential in nature.
A position that is primarily confidential in nature involve the highest degree of
confidence, or are closely bound up with and dependent on other positions to which
they subordinate, or are temporary in nature.
A primarily confidential position is characterized by the close proximity of the
positions of the appointee as well as the high degree of trust and confidence
inherent in their relationship.
The responsibilities of the corporate secretary are not merely clerical or routinary in
nature. The work involves constant exposure to sensitive policy matters and
confidential deliberations that are not always open to the public, as unscrupulous
person may use them to harm the corporation. Board members must have the

highest confidence in the secretary to ensure that their honest sentiments are
always and fully expressed, in the interest of the Corporation.

Delfin A. Brion vs. Souther Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day
Adventist Church
Facts: Delfin A. Brion became a member of South Philippine Union Mission of the
Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA). He started as a literature evangelist, then a
janitor or office helper, until he became an ordained minister and president of the
Northeastern Mindanao Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Butuan City.
Due to corruption charge, Brion was transferred to the Davao Mission of the SDA.
After that, due to an act of indiscretion with a masseuse, Brion was demoted to the
position of Sabbath School Director at the Northern Mindanao Mission of the SDA.
Here, Brion worked until he retired in 1983. As was the practice of the SDA, Brion
was provided a monthly amount as a retirement benefit.
Brion got into an argument with Samuel Sanes, another pastor of the SDA. Brion
established a congregation called "Home Church." Brion succeeded in enticing a
number of SDA member to become part of his congregation. Brion was
excommunicated by the SDA and his name was dropped from the Church Record
Book. As a consequence of his "disfellowship," Brions monthly retirement benefit
was discontinued by the SDA.
He filed an action for mandamus with the RTC asking that the SDA restore his
monthly retirement benefit. The SDA insisted that an employee must "devote his life
to the work of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" even after retirement to continue
enjoying retirement benefits.
The RTC ruled in favor of Brion. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ordered
the dismissal ofthe complaint.
Issue: Whether the conditions for eligibility for retirement be met only at the time of
retirement or are these conditions continuing ones which must be complied with
even after one has retired.
Held: Retirement has been defined as a withdrawal from office, public station,
business, occupation, or public duty. It is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a
voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter,
after reaching a certain age, agrees and/or consents to sever his employment with
the former.
The nature of the rights conferred by a retirement or pension plan depends in large
measure upon the provisions of such particular plan. Any employee may be retired
upon reaching the retirement age established in the CBA or other applicable
employment contract. In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to
receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and
any CBA and other agreements.
Pension and retirement plans create a contractual obligation in which the promise to
pay benefits is made in consideration of the continued faithful service of the
employee for the requisite period. Before a right to retirement benefits or pension
vests in an employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility with
respect to the nature of employment, age, and length of service. In this case, the

SDA's eligibility requirement as to length of service is even more stringent than that
required by law.
Retirement means to withdraw from one's office, occupation, or duty. To require
Brion to continue "devoting his life to the work of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church" would mean that Brion never really withdraws from his office or occupation,
that of working for the church. The conditions of eligibility for retirement must be
met at the time of retirement at which stage the right to retirement benefits or
pension, if the employee is eligible, vests in him. It is true that "upon the expulsion
of a priest or minister from a pastorate, all right to further salary ceases" this
presupposes that the priest or minister is still on "active duty," so to speak. Here,
Brion has already retired. Hence, he already had a vested right to receive retirement
benefits, a right which could not be taken away from him by expulsion or
excommunication, this not being a ground for termination of retirement benefits
under the SDA's retirement plan.