I. SHORT TITLE: BINAMIRA V. GARRUCHO, JR.

II. FULL TITLE: Ramon P. Binamira versus Peter D. Garrucho, Jr. - G.R. 92008, July
30, 1990; J. Cruz (ponente)

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On April 7, 1986, Ramon P. Binamira was appointed General Manager of the Philippine
Tourism Authority (PTA) by Jose Antonio Gonzales, Minister of Tourism and PTA Board
Chairman. On April 10, 1986, Gonzales sought the approval of President Corazon Aquino on
the composition of the PTA Board of Directors, which included Binamira as Vice-Chair.
Binamira alleges that he carried out such duties and such were acknowledged by various
government offices, including the Office of the President.
On January 4, 1990, Peter D. Garrucho, Jr., the new Secretary of Tourism, demanded the
resignation of Binamira as General Manager. Garrucho’s demands were backed by a
Memorandum issued by President Aquino, which recalled Binamira’s designation. Binamira
was replaced, thereafter.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
None

V. ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Binamira was appointed as General Manager.
2. Whether or not Binamira can be reinstated as General Manager of the PTA as he was
removed without just cause in violation of his security of tenure.

VI. HELD:

1. NO. Section 23-A of P.D. 564, which created the Philippine Tourism Authority, provides
as follows:

SECTION 23-A. General Manager-Appointment and Tenure. — The General

Manager shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines and shall serve
for a term of six (6) years unless sooner removed for cause; Provided, That upon
the expiration of his term, he shall serve as such until his successor shall have been
appointed and qualified. (As amended by P.D. 1400).

Binamira was not appointed by the President, but merely designated by the Minister of
Tourism. Even though the President approved the proposed composition of the PTA Board of
Directors which Binamira was included in, Binamira’s designation is merely provisional and
can be, as in fact recalled by the President at will.

2. NO. The court held that “where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the
implication is that he shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be
replaced at will by the appointing authority.” Binamira’s claim of security of tenure
cannot be appreciated, as 1) his designation was an unlawful encroachment of presidential
 prerogative and 2) such designation is temporary in nature that can be legally withdrawn
at will.

VII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.