G.R. No.

185740 July 23, 2013

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE, represented by
GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
BEATRIZ O. GONZALES, Respondent.
FACTS
The case of the Provincial Government of Camarines Norte versus Beatriz O. Gonzales involves
the latter's dismissal from her position as the province's provincial administrator. The Provincial
Governor filed administrative charges against Gonzales, alleging that she committed grave
misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges
stemmed from Gonzales' alleged involvement in the anomalous purchase of a vehicle for the
province, as well as her alleged failure to remit the contributions of the provincial government
employees to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

The Ad Hoc Investigation Committee was created to investigate the charges against Gonzales.
The Committee conducted hearings and received evidence from both parties. After evaluating
the evidence, the Committee found Gonzales guilty of the charges and recommended her
dismissal from service. The Provincial Governor approved the recommendation, and Gonzales
was subsequently dismissed from her position.

Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that her dismissal was
illegal and that she was denied due process. The Court of Appeals granted Gonzales' petition and
ordered her reinstatement as the provincial administrator. The Court held that Gonzales was
denied due process because she was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
against her during the investigation. The Court also found that the charges against Gonzales were
not supported by substantial evidence.

The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating Gonzales. The Supreme Court
denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that
Gonzales was denied due process during the investigation, and that the charges against her were
not supported by substantial evidence. The Court also emphasized that the nature of a position
may change by law according to the dictates of Congress, but the right to hold a position is a
right that enjoys constitutional and statutory guarantee, which may change according to the
nature of the position.
ISSUE
1) Whether Congress has re-classified the provincial administrator position from
a career service to a primarily confidential, non-career service position; and
2) Whether Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as provincial
administrator of the Province of Camarines Norte.

DECISION
In the case of Salcedo and Ignacio v. Carpio and Carreon, the court held that Congress has the
authority to terminate the term of a public office at any time, even if it is occupied by an
incumbent. This precedent was applied more recently in Dimayuga v. Benedicto II, where the
removal of a permanent appointee was upheld due to a change in the position's nature.

In the present case, the court addressed the removal of Gonzales as provincial administrator
under RA 7160, which modified the position to be primarily confidential. The court emphasized
that the nature of the position at the time of removal should be considered, not just the nature of
the appointment at the start of government service.

The dissenting opinion argued that security of tenure protects permanent appointments, citing
Gabriel v. Domingo. However, the majority distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with
backwages and monetary benefits, not a change in the nature of the position.

The court also discussed Executive Order No. 503, noting that it does not grant security of tenure
to local government employees affected by RA 7160. The dissenting opinion argued otherwise,
but the majority maintained that EO 503 only applies to national government employees.

The court concluded that Gonzales, as a primarily confidential employee, lost her position due to
the loss of trust and confidence from the appointing authority, and her termination was lawful.
However, she is entitled to retirement benefits, leave credits, and future employment in
government service. The decision reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Gonzales.
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition, and REVERSE and
SET ASIDE the Decision dated June 25, 2008 and the Resolution dated December 2, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 97425.
SO ORDERED.