Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 92008 July 30, 1990
RAMON P. BINAMIRA, petitioner,
vs.
PETER D. GARRUCHO, JR., respondent.
Ledesma, Saludo & Associates for petitioner.

CRUZ, J.:
In this petition for quo warranto, Ramon P. Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office of eneral
Mana!er of the Philippine "ourism Authorit# from $hich he claims to have been removed $ithout %ust
cause in violation of his securit# of tenure.
"he petitioner bases his claim on the follo$in! communication addressed to him b# the Minister of
"ourism on April &, '()*+
MEM,RAN-.M ",+ MR. RAM,N P. BINAMIRA
/ou are hereb# desi!nated eneral Mana!er of the Philippine "ourism Authorit#,
effective immediatel#.
B# virtue hereof, #ou ma# 0ualif# and enter upon the performance of the duties of the
office.
12!d.3 4,2E AN",NI, ,N5A6E2 Minister of "ourism and Chairman, P.".A. Board
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner assumed office on the same date.
,n April '7, '()*, Minister on8ales sou!ht approval from President A0uino of the composition of
the Board of -irectors of the P"A, $hich included Binamira as 9ice:Chairman in his capacit# as
eneral Mana!er. "his approval $as !iven b# the President on the same date.
1
Binamira claims that since assumin! office, he had dischar!ed the duties of P"A eneral Mana!er
and 9ice:Chairman of its Board of -irectors and had been ackno$led!ed as such b# various
!overnment offices, includin! the ,ffice of the President.
;e complains, thou!h, that on 4anuar# <, '((7, his resi!nation $as demanded b# respondent
arrucho as the ne$ 2ecretar# of "ourism. Binamira=s demurrer led to an unpleasant e>chan!e that
led to his filin! of a complaint a!ainst the 2ecretar# $ith the Commission on ;uman Ri!hts. But that
is another matter that does not concern us here.
?hat does is that on 4anuar# @, '((7, President A0uino sent respondent arrucho the follo$in!
memorandum,
2
cop# furnished Binamira+
@ 4anuar# '((7
MEM,RAN-.M ",+ ;on. Peter -. arrucho, 4r.. 2ecretar# of "ourism
It appearin! from the records #ou have submitted to this ,ffice that the present
eneral Mana!er of the Philippine "ourism Authorit# $as desi!nated not b# the
President, as re0uired b# P.-. No. A*@, as amended, but onl# b# the 2ecretar# of
"ourism, such desi!nation is invalid. Accordin!l#, #ou are hereb# desi!nated
concurrentl# as eneral Mana!er, effective immediatel#, until I can appoint a person
to serve in the said office in a permanent capacit#.
Please be !uided accordin!l#.
12!d.3 C,RA5,N C. AB.IN,
cc+ Mr. Ramon P. Binamira Philippine "ourism Authorit# Manila
arrucho havin! taken over as eneral Mana!er of the P"A in accordance $ith this memorandum,
the petitioner filed this action a!ainst him to 0uestion his title. 2ubse0uentl#, $hile his ori!inal
petition $as pendin!, Binamira filed a supplemental petition alle!in! that on April *, '((7, the
President of the Philippines appointed 4ose A. Capistrano as eneral Mana!er of the Philippine
"ourism Authorit#. Capistrano $as impleaded as additional respondent.
"he issue presented in this case is starkl# simple.
2ection <C:A of P.-. A*@, $hich created the Philippine "ourism Authorit#, provides as follo$s+
2EC"I,N <C:A. General Manager-Appointment and Tenure. D "he eneral
Mana!er shall be appointed b# the President of the Philippines and shall serve for a
term of si> 1*3 #ears unless sooner removed for causeE Provided, "hat upon the
e>piration of his term, he shall serve as such until his successor shall have been
appointed and 0ualified. 1As amended b# P.-. '@773
It is not disputed that the petitioner $as not appointed b# the President of the Philippines but
onl# designated b# the Minister of "ourism. "here is a clear distinction bet$een appointment and
desi!nation that the petitioner has failed to consider.
Appointment ma# be defined as the selection, b# the authorit# vested $ith the po$er, of an individual
$ho is to e>ercise the functions of a !iven office.
3
?hen completed, usuall# $ith its confirmation, the
appointment results in securit# of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure
because of the nature of his office. -esi!nation, on the other hand, connotes merel# the imposition
b# la$ of additional duties on an incumbent official,

as $here, in the case before us, the 2ecretar#

of "ourism is desi!nated Chairman of the Board of -irectors of the Philippine "ourism Authorit#, or
$here, under the Constitution, three 4ustices of the 2upreme Court are desi!nated b# the Chief
4ustice to sit in the Electoral "ribunal of the 2enate or the ;ouse of Representatives.
!
It is said that
appointment is essentiall# e>ecutive $hile desi!nation is le!islative in nature.
-esi!nation ma# also be loosel# defined as an appointment because it like$ise involves the namin!
of a particular person to a specified public office. "hat is the common understandin! of the term.
;o$ever, $here the person is merel# desi!nated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall
hold the office onl# in a temporar# capacit# and ma# be replaced at $ill b# the appointin! authorit#.
In this sense, the desi!nation is considered onl# an actin! or temporar# appointment, $hich does not
confer securit# of tenure on the person named.
Even if so understood, that is, as an appointment, the desi!nation of the petitioner cannot sustain his
claim that he has been ille!all# removed. "he reason is that the decree clearl# provides that the
appointment of the eneral Mana!er of the Philippine "ourism Authorit# shall be made b# the
President of the Philippines, not b# an# other officer. Appointment involves the e>ercise of discretion,
$hich because of its nature cannot be dele!ated. 6e!all# speakin!, it $as not possible for Minister
on8ales to assume the e>ercise of that discretion as an alter ego of the President. "he
appointment 1or desi!nation3 of the petitioner $as not a merel# mechanical or ministerial act that
could be validl# performed b# a subordinate even if he happened as in this case to be a member of
the Cabinet.
An officer to $hom a discretion is entrusted cannot dele!ate it to another, the
presumption bein! that he $as chosen because he $as deemed fit and competent to
e>ercise that %ud!ment and discretion, and unless the po$er to substitute another in his
place has been !iven to him, he cannot dele!ate his duties to another.
"
In those cases in $hich the proper e>ecution of the office re0uires, on the part of the
officer, the e>ercise of %ud!ment or discretion, the presumption is that he $as chosen
because he $as deemed fit and competent to e>ercise that %ud!ment and discretion, and,
unless po$er to substitute another in his place has been !iven to him, he cannot
dele!ate his duties to another.
#
Indeed, even on the assumption that the po$er conferred on the President could be validl#
e>ercised b# the 2ecretar#, $e still cannot accept that the act of the latter, as an e>tension or
Fpro%ectionF of the personalit# of the President, made irreversible the petitioner=s title to the position
in 0uestion. "he petitioner=s conclusion that Minister on8ales=s act $as in effect the act of President
A0uino is based onl# on half the doctrine he vi!orousl# invokes. 4ustice 6aurel stated that doctrine
clearl# in the landmark case of 9illena v. 2ecretar# of the Interior,
8
$here he described the
relationship of the President of the Philippines and the members of the Cabinet as follo$s+
... all e>ecutive and administrative or!ani8ations are ad%uncts of the E>ecutive
-epartment, the heads of the various e>ecutive departments are assistants and
a!ents of the Chief E>ecutive, and, e>cept in cases $here the Chief E>ecutive is
re0uired b# the Constitution or the la$ to act in person or the e>i!encies of the
situation demand that he act personall#, the multifarious e>ecutive and administrative
functions of the Chief E>ecutive are performed b# and throu!h the e>ecutive
departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and
promul!ated in the re!ular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated b# the Chief E>ecutive, presumptivel# the acts of the Chief E>ecutive.
"he doctrine presumes the acts of the -epartment ;ead to be the acts of the President of the
Philippines $hen Fperformed and promul!ated in the re!ular course of business,F $hich $as true of
the desi!nation made b# Minister on8ales in favor of the petitioner. But it also adds that such acts
shall be considered valid onl# if not =disapproved or reprobated b# the Chief E>ecutive,F as also
happened in the case at bar.
"he ar!ument that the desi!nation made b# Minister on8ales $as approved b# President A0uino
throu!h her approval of the composition of the Board of -irectors of the P"A is not persuasive. It
must be remembered that Binamira $as included therein as 9ice: Chairman onl# because of his
desi!nation as P"A eneral Mana!er b# Minister on8ales. 2uch desi!nation bein! merel#
provisional, it could be recalled at $ill, as in fact it $as recalled b# the President herself, throu!h the
memorandum she addressed to 2ecretar# arrucho on 4anuar# @, '((7.
?ith these rulin!s, the petitioner=s claim of securit# of tenure must perforce fall to the !round. ;is
desi!nation bein! an unla$ful encroachment on a presidential prero!ative, he did not ac0uire valid
title thereunder to the position in 0uestion. Even if it be assumed that it could be and $as authori8ed,
the desi!nation si!nified merel# a temporar# or actin! appointment that could be le!all# $ithdra$n at
pleasure, as in fact it $as 1albeit for a different reason3.i tc-a!sl In either case, the petitioner=s claim of
securit# of tenure must be re%ected.
"he Court s#mpathi8es $ith the petitioner, $ho apparentl# believed in !ood faith that he $as bein!
e>tended a permanent appointment b# the Minister of "ourism. After all, Minister on8ales had the
ostensible authorit# to do so at the time the desi!nation $as made. "his belief seemed stren!thened
$hen President A0uino later approved the composition of the P"A Board of -irectors $here the
petitioner $as desi!nated 9ice:Chairman because of his position as eneral Mana!er of the P"A.
;o$ever, such circumstances fall short of the cate!orical appointment re0uired to be made b# the
President herself, and not the Minister of "ourism, under 2ec. <C of P.-. No. A*@. ?e must rule
therefore that the petitioner never ac0uired valid title to the disputed position and so has no ri!ht to
be reinstated as eneral Mana!er of the Philippine "ourism Authorit#.
?;EREG,RE, the petition is -I2MI22E-, $ith costs a!ainst the petitioner. It is so ordered.
"arvasa, Melencio-#errera, Gutierre$, %r., Paras, &eliciano, Ganca'co, Padilla, (idin, Sarmiento,
)ortes, Gri*o-Aquino, Medialdea and +egalado, %%., concur.
&ernan, ).%., too, no part.

$oo%&o%'(
' Anne> C, Rollo, p, <).
< Anne> ', l-id., p. *<.
C Cru8, Phil. Political 6a$, '()( ed., p. '&)E on8ales, Neptali A., Administrative
6a$, 6a$ on Public ,fficers and Election 6a$, '(*' ed., p. '@*.
@ .-id., on8ales, p, 'AC.
A 2ec. '@, P.-. A*@, 2ec. '&, Article 9I, '()& Constitution.
* 2tate v. Patterson, C@ N. A*&E @* Corpus 4uris, '7CCE Mechem, 6a$ of Public
,fficers, p. A*&.
& 2tate v. Patterson, C@ N. '*C.
) *& Phil. @A'.
"he 6a$phil Pro%ect : Arellano 6a$ Goundation