CAAP-EU v. CAAP, et al.

G.R. No. 190120

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES' UNION (CAAP-

EU) FORMERLY AIR TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES' UNION (ATEU), Petitioner,

- versus -

- versus -

Respondents.

DECISION
VILLARAMA, J.:

Before this Court is an Amended Petition

for Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioner Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines
Employees’ Union (CAAP-EU) formerly Air Transportation Employees’ Union (ATEU)
(petitioner) - a legitimate union of employees of respondent Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP). Petitioner prays that the Court direct all respondents to desist from
promulgating and implementing Authority Orders, Memoranda and all other issuances relating
to the filling up of positions within the CAAP whether existing or newly created, and praying
that the Court nullify and set aside the following:

a. Authority Order No. 77-08;

b. Authority Order No. 118-08;

c. Authority Order No. 139-08;

d. Authority Order No. 163-08;

e. Authority Order No. 172-08;

f. Authority Order No. 173-08;

g. Authority Order No. 181-08;

h. Authority Order No. 81-09;

i. Authority Order No. 82-09;

and

j. Authority Order No. 83-09

all issued by respondent Ruben F. Ciron, former Acting Director General of the CAAP
allegedly with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.
Petitioner asserts that such grave abuse of discretion was shown by the issuances of said
Authority Orders and Memoranda which resulted in the classification and treatment of
the incumbent personnel of the Air Transportation Office (ATO), now of CAAP, into
"hold-over" status, thus violating the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9497

otherwise known as the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 and the security of tenure of
government employees guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6656.

A brief historical background of the CAAP is in order.

On November 20, 1931, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 3909

providing that the Secretary ofthe Department of Commerce and Communications has the duty,
among others, to foster air commerce, encourage the establishment of airports, civil airways and
other navigation facilities and investigate causes of air mishaps. As such, said Secretary has the
power to administer and enforce air traffic rules, issue or revoke licenses and issue regulations
necessary to execute his vested functions.

On December 5, 1932, Act No. 3996

amended Act No. 3909 as to matters concerning the licensing of airmen and aircraft, inspection
of aircraft, air traffic rules, schedules and rates and enforcement of aviation laws.

On December 9, 1932, Act No. 4033

was approved, providing, among others, that no aviation public service, including those of
foreign aircrafts, shall operate in the Philippines without having first secured from the
Philippine Legislature a franchise to operate an air service.

CAAP narrated that from 1932 to 1936, there were no standard procedures as to the licensing of
airmen, registration of aircraft and recording of various aeronautical activities connected with
commercial aviation. There were attempts made to register planes and their owners without
ascertaining their airworthiness and to record names of pilots, airplane mechanics and other
details. It was also narrated that in 1933, the office of Technical Assistant of Aviation Matters
was expanded into the Aeronautics Division under the Department of Commerce and Industry,
the functions of which were embodied in Administrative Order No. 309, a joint Bulletin issued
by the Department of Public Works and Communications and the Department of Finance.

On November 12, 1936, the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 168,
otherwise known as the Civil Aviation Law of the Philippines, creating the Bureauof Aeronautics
and organizing the same under the Department of Public Works and Communications.

After the liberation of the Philippines in March 1945, the Bureau was reorganized and placed
under the Department of National Defense. Among its functions was to promulgate civil aviation
regulations.

On October, 1947, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 94 which reorganized the government,
transferred the Bureau of Aeronautics to the newly created Department of Commerce
and Industry and renamed the same as the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA).

On June 5, 1948, R.A. No. 224

created the National Airports Corporation, serving as an agency of the Republic of the
Philippines for the development, administration, operation and management of government
owned landing fields in the country

except for those controlled and/or operated by the Armed Forces.

On November 10, 1950, the National Airports Corporation was abolished by E.O. No.
365

and was replaced by the CAA.

On June 20, 1952, R.A. No. 776,

otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, was passed, reorganizing the
Civil Aeronautics Board and the CAA, defining their respective powers and duties, making
adjustments as to the funds and personnel and regulating civil aeronautics. Under R.A. No. 776,
the CAA was charged with the duty of planning, designing, constructing, equipping, expanding,
improving, repairing or altering aerodromes or such other structures, improvements or air
navigation facilities.

On October 19, 1956, former President Ramon Magsaysay issued E.O. No. 209,

transferring in totothe CAA to the Department of Public Works, Transportation and

Communications from the Department of Commerce and Industry.

On January 20, 1975, Letter of Instruction No. 244, series of 1975,

directed that all funds for the preliminary engineering, construction and maintenance of all
national airports appropriated for the fiscal year 1974-75 be transferred and/or released to the
Department of Public Highways. The responsibilities related to location, planning design and
funding were later returned to the CAA.

On July 23, 1979, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued E.O. No. 546,

renaming the CAA as the Bureauof Air Transportation (BAT) and placing the same under the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
Subsequently, BAT, though reorganized, was maintained under E.O. No. 125

issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino (President Aquino) on January 30, 1987. Shortly
thereafter or on April 13, 1987, President Aquino issued E.O. No. 125-A

renaming BAT to ATO which would be headed by the Assistant Secretary ofthe Office of Air
Transportation.

Section 12

of said E.O. No. 125 which contained the proviso concerning BAT was deleted by Section 2

of E.O. No. 125-A.

As duly claimed by petitioner, sometime in the middle of 1995, the Philippine civil
aviation safety oversight capability was downgraded by the United States of America
(USA) through her Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) International Aviation Safety
Assessment (IASA) into a Category 2

status. A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to
oversee air carriers in accordance withminimum international standards, or that its civil
aviation authority - equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters - is deficient inone or more
areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping orinspection procedures.
Correlatively, a Category 1 rating means a country’s civil aviation authority complies with the
International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO) standards, thus, her air carriers can add flights and services to the USA and carry the
code of USA carriers.

Petitioner attested that sometime in the first quarter of 1997, the Category 1 status was regained
by the Philippines as it was successfully initiated by the organic/incumbent personnel of the
defunct ATO.

However, sometime in January 2008, the FAA reverted the Philippines to its 1995 air
safety rating of Category 2 from Category 1 because of air safety regulations, practices
and personnel that fell below the standards of the ICAO.

Thus, on March 4, 2008, R.A. No. 9497 was passed, whereby ATO was replaced by
CAAP, to be headed by the Director General of Civil Aviation. Pursuant to Sections 4

and 85

thereof, the ATO was abolished, and all its powers were transferred to the CAAP. To ensure the
smooth transition from ATO to CAAP, Section 86

of R.A. No. 9497 directed the Assistant Secretary of the ATO to continue to hold office and
assume the powers of the CAAP Director General until his successor shall have been appointed
and inducted into office in accordance with said law. Likewise, retirement packages were
provided to ATO employees who were willing to retire from the service.
On July 2, 2008, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Ruben F. Ciron
as Acting Director General of the CAAP.

Immediately upon assumption of office, Ciron issued orders and memoranda for the active
participation of incumbent and organic personnel of the defunct ATO along with his hired
consultants in the crafting and formulation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
R.A. No. 9497, the new Organizational Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP) and the
Qualification Standards (QS) for the proposed new plantilla of positions within the CAAP.

Accordingly, the Board of Directors of CAAP prepared its OSSP and the IRR of R.A. No.
9497, both of which were approved in Board Resolution No. 08-001

dated July 30, 2008. Pursuant to Section 90

of R.A. No. 9497, the IRR was formulated and was subsequently published in two newspapers
of general circulation.

Pertinently, Section 60 (a) of the IRR provides that the incumbent personnel ofthe former ATO
shall continue to hold office in hold-over capacity until such time as the new Staffing Pattern
and Manning shall have been approved by the Board and implemented by the CAAP Director
General. Thereafter, the management of CAAP endorsed its OSSP for the approval of respondent
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in view of the latter’s authority to review
reorganization details of government agencies. The OSSP was approved on July 20, 2009.

However, petitioner lamented, among others, that the IRR, OSSP and QS approved by the
CAAP Board of Directors were different from that agreed upon by the incumbent ATO personnel
and Director General Ciron and his consultants.

Subsequently, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 10

and House Concurrent Resolution No. 27

were issued, which clarified, among others, the intent of the lawmakers as regards the abolition
of ATO; the hold-over status of qualified employees of ATO and the preferential status of the
said employees with respect to the filling up of CAAP plantilla positions.

Aggrieved, on November 20, 2009, petitioner filed the Original Petition for Prohibition

directly before this Court. Said petition was subsequently amended on November 25, 2009. It
assails the aforementioned Authority Orders, Memoranda and other issuances related to the
selection and filling up of positions issued by Director General Ciron and seeks the nullification
thereof including the IRR of R.A. No. 9497, the OSSP and QS for the employees of CAAP.

Petitioner invokes the following grounds:

I.

RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING AND IMPLEMENTING
AUTHORITY ORDERS, MEMORANDA AND ALL OTHER ISSUANCES RELATED TO
THE SELECTION AND FILLING UP OFPOSITIONS IN THE CAAP, WHETHER
EXISTING OR NEWLY CREATED, CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF POSITIONS,
ITEM NUMBERS, QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AND PUBLICATION, WHICH ARE
INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TOTHE SELECTION AND
APPOINTMENT TO ANY GOVERNMENT POST [; AND]

II.

RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN EXPANDING THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE "HOLD-OVER" STATUS IN THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS
OF R.A. 9497, THUS VIOLATING THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF R.A. 9497 AND
THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED BY
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND R.A. 6656.

Petitioner explains that it directly sought recourse from this Court because there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Even ifthere would be any remedy, petitioner submits that such would be ineffective
given the brazenness of respondents’ official actions. Petitioner also claims that it sought
redress from the different agencies of the government butits actions were an exercise in
futility because said agencies failed to act on its grievances. Petitioner further avers that
since it represents government employees in an agency which is national in scopeand
whose function is highly imbued with public interest affecting national security and the
economy, it would be paramount that its issues be resolved by this Court.

On the merits, petitioner argues, among others, that respondents committed grave
abuse of discretion in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Authority Orders
and Memoranda because they placed the tenure of the CAAP personnel in jeopardy in
clear violation of the latter’s security of tenure which is protected by the 1987
Constitution

and R.A. No. 6656. Petitioner points out that while Sections 85 and 86 of R.A. No. 9497 literally
abolished ATO, nevertheless, the tenor of the provisions thereof simply perpetuated and
assumed the core of civil aviation regulatory functions, powers, and authority, including all
assets of the defunct ATO. Petitioner also invokes the Minutes of the Discussion of the
Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of HBN 3156 and the
amendments agreed upon on "The Creation of the Civil Aviation Authority,"

and asserts that the real intention of R.A. No. 9497 was merely reorganization of the agency and
notits entire abolition. Purportedly, abolition of an office cannot have the effect of removing an
officer holding it if the office is restored under another name. Petitioner further contends that
while Section 86 of R.A. No. 9497 categorically states that "the incumbent Assistant Secretary of
the ATO shall continue to hold office and assume the powers of the Director General until his
successor shall have been appointed and inducted into office," the law made no mention of the
status of the employment of the personnel of the defunct ATO. The employees’ hold-over status
as indicated in the IRR and in the Joint Senate Resolutions is opposed to Section 86 of R.A. No.
9497 which merely limits such status to the incumbent Assistant Secretary of the ATO as acting
CAAP Director General. Likewise, petitioner asserts that the IRR expanded and modified the law
and that the legislature through the issuance of said Resolutions encroached on the functions of
this Court in interpreting the same. All told, petitioner submits that R.A. No. 9497 simply
mandated that the selection and appointment of the heads of offices within CAAP are limited to
the rank-and-file employees of the concerned or corresponding offices of the defunct ATO and
that the personnel of the same, unless they opted to retire, are legally deemed transferred to the
newly created CAAP. The hold-over status accorded to the incumbent personnel of the ATO
deviated from the law and the same personnel were placedin a disadvantageous situation and
were stripped of their security of tenure.

On the other hand, CAAP through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) counters that the issue regarding the nullification of the assailed Authority
Orders has become moot and academic. The OGCC asseverates that when the new CAAP
Director General Alfonso G. Cusi (Director General Cusi) assumed office, he issued a
Memorandum

dated March 12, 2010 which provided that coterminous employees, consultants and job-order
employees are deemed not employed under the CAAP unless reappointed orrenewed, thus
terminating the services of all the personnel appointed by Director General Ciron. The OGCC
submits that there being no justiciable controversy, there is nothing for this Court to adjudicate.
Moreover, the OGCC advances the view that petitioner failed to establish its right to injunctive
relief as its bare and selfserving allegations failed to overthrow the presumption that CAAP
regularly performed its official functions in the promulgation and/or implementation of the
assailed orders. The OGCC alsosubmits that petitioner disregarded the basic principle of the
hierarchy of courts and the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts when petitioner directly
filed the instant petition before us. The OGCC points out that, despite petitioner’s claim that it
sought redress from different government agencies, petitioner failed to substantiate such claim.
The selection processes assailed by petitioner, according to the OGCC, constitute triable facts
and necessitate the determination and resolution of factual issues. Lastly, the OGCC questions
the legal personality of petitioner to file the petition in behalf of the CAAP employees. The OGCC
posits that while petitioner was registered as the employees’ union of the now abolished ATO,
petitioner was not registered with the CSC.

On this point, respondents DBM and CSC through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) opine that DBM acted within the scope of its authority when it approved the
OSSP ofthe CAAP on July 20, 2009 as the same was done in the performance of DBM’s
official functions as provided under E.O. No. 165, series of 1987.

With its bare and unsubstantiated allegations, petitioner failed to prove that DBM acted with
grave abuse of discretion in the approval thereof. Moreover, invoking that ATO was effectively
abolished by R.A. No. 9497,the OSG defends the validity of Section 60(a) of the IRR which states
that the incumbent personnel of the ATO shall continue to hold office in a "hold[-]over capacity
until such time [that a] new [s]taffing [p]attern and [m]anning [is] approved by the Board." The
OSG posits that while it is true that an incumbent employee of the defunct ATO is given
preference in the filling up of a plantilla position, said employee does not automatically qualify
to the position he is presently holding. Thus, said employee still has toqualify under the new and
approved staffing pattern and the new QS set by the CSC. Such approved QS shall be used as the
standard minimum qualification requirements for purposes of appointments per CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 03, series of 1991. However, if the incumbent fails to qualify, the
affected employee may choose from the retirement packages provided under R.A. No. 9497
itself.

The OSG asserts that in this case the employees’ right to security of tenure as embodied under
Section 2(3),

Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution is not undermined. The OSG avers thatthe CSC has not yet
received any appointments from the CAAP for attestation; hence, to restrain the CSC is
premature.

In essence, the issues for our resolution are:

1. Whether ATO was abolished under R.A. No. 9497;

2. Whether the incumbent ATO employees’ constitutional right to security of tenure was
impaired; and

3. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion when Section 60 of the IRR provided a
"hold-over" status for ATO employees, which was not expressly provided for under R.A.
No. 9497. Prefatorily, we rule that petitioner has locus standi. Petitioner impugns the
constitutionality of the IRR of R.A. No. 9497 and assailsthe validity of the abolition of
the ATO and respondents’ acts in filling up positions within CAAP. Petitioner’s members
are all employees of the defunct ATO and are actually covered by the law and its IRR.
Thus, they have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such thatthey will sustain
direct injury as a result of the enforcement of R.A. No. 9497 and its IRR.

The Court agrees with the postulation of the OGCC that the nullification of the assailed
Authority Orders has become moot and academic considering that Director General
Cusi already issued a Memorandum

dated March 12, 2010, terminating the services of all the personnel appointed by Director
General Ciron. An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a
justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.

The Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is
needed or called for.

Nevertheless, despite this moot issue and the presence of some procedural flaws in the
instant petition, such as petitioner’s disregard of the hierarchy of courts and the non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies, we deem it necessary to address the essential
issues. It is in the interest of the State that questions relating to the status and existence
of a public office be settled without delay.

That being said, we rule that the petition is bereft of merit.

The first issue is resolved in the affirmative.

Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that the power to abolish a public office is
lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create
includes the power to destroy. A public office is created either by the Constitution, by
statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office was created by the
Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that brought it into
existence.

Indubitably, this is the case at hand. The legislature through R.A. No. 9497 abolished
the ATO as explicitly stated in Sections 4 and 85 thereof, viz:

SEC. 4. Creation of the Authority. - There is hereby created an independent regulatory

body with quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers and possessing corporate
attributes to be known as the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP),
hereinafter referred to as the "Authority", attached to the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC) for the purpose of policy coordination. For this purpose,
the existing Air Transportation Office created under the provisions of Republic Act No.
776, as amended, is hereby abolished.

xxxx

SEC. 85. Abolition of the Air Transportation Office. - The Air Transportation Office
(ATO) created under Republic Act No. 776, a sectoral office of the Department of
Transportation and

Communications (DOTC), is hereby abolished.

All powers, duties and rights vested by law and exercised by the ATO is hereby
transferred to the Authority.

All assets, real and personal properties, funds and revenues owned by or vested in the
different officesof the ATO are transferred to the Authority. All contracts, records and
documents relating to the operations of the abolished agency and its offices and
branches are likewise transferred to the Authority. Any real property owned by the
national government or government-owned corporation or authority which is being
used and utilized as office or facility by the ATO shall be transferred and titled in favor
of the Authority. (Emphasis supplied)

Verily, the question whether a law abolishes an office is a question of legislative intent.
In this case, petitioner tries to raise doubts as to the real intention of Congress.
However, there should not be any controversy if there is an explicit declaration of
abolition in the law itself.

For where a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning
and applied without attempt to interpret. Verba legis non est recedendum, index animi sermo
est. There should be no departure from the words of the statute, for speech is the index of
intention.
The legislature, through Sections 4 and 85 of R.A. No. 9497, has so clearly provided. As the
Court merely interprets the law as it is, we have no discretion to give statutes a meaning
detached from the manifest intendment and language thereof.

It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time for this Court to rule regarding the
abolition of the ATO and the emergence of the CAAP by virtue of R.A. No. 9497. Holding
thatthe CAAP, as the legal successor of the ATO, is liable to respondents therein for
obligations incurred by ATO, this Court in Air Transportation Office v. Ramos,

in no uncertain terms, held that the ATO was abolished by virtue of Sections 4 and 85 of R.A.
No. 9497.

Thus, we find petitioner’s assertion thatthe real intention of R.A. No. 9497 was merely
the reorganization ofthe ATO and not its abolition devoid of merit.

Correlatively, we resolve the second issue in the negative.

For the ATO employees’ security of tenure to be impaired, the abolition of the ATO must
be done in bad faith.

At this juncture, our ruling in Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board v.
Barin

is instructive, to wit:

A valid order of abolition must not only come from a legitimate body, it must also be
made in good faith. An abolition is made in good faith when it is not made for political
or personal reasons, or when it does not circumvent the constitutional security of tenure
of civil service employees. Abolition of an office may be brought about by reasons of
economy, or to remove redundancy of functions, or a clear and explicit constitutional
mandate for such termination of employment.Where one office is abolished and
replaced with another office vested with similar functions, the abolition is a legal nullity.
When there is a void abolition, the incumbent is deemed to have never ceased holding
office.

We have also held that, other thanthe aforestated reasons of economy, making the
bureaucracy more efficient is also indicative of the exercise of good faith in, and a valid
purpose for, the abolition of an office.

The purpose for the abolition of the ATO is clearly manifested in Section 2 of R.A. No.
9497: SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to
provide safe and efficient air transport and regulatory services in the Philippines by
providing for the creation of a civil aviation authority with jurisdiction over the
restructuring of the civil aviation system, the promotion, development and regulation of
the technical, operational, safety, and aviation security functions under the civil aviation
authority. (Emphasis supplied)
It cannot be disregarded that in January 2008, before the enactment of R.A. No. 9497,
the Philippines was again downgraded by the FAA to a Category 2 status because of air
safety regulations, practices and personnel which fell below the ICAO’s standards.
Hence, it is but reasonable to state that the purpose for the abolition of the ATO, as
posited by petitioner itself, was "to create a much more effective Agency in order to
address the problems that go along with the fast emerging developments in the field of
the globally-competitive aviation industry."

On the other hand, circumstances evidencing bad faith are enumerated in Section 2 of
R.A. No. 6656 which provides:

SEC. 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid
cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant
to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or
there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies
of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of
any or some of the following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith
in the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise toa claim for
reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved party: (a) Where there is a significant
increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or
agency concerned;

(b) Where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same
functions is created;

(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit;

(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned

and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the original
offices;

(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof.
(Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner posits that abolition of an office cannot have the effect of removing an officer
holding it if the office is restored under another name. However, we find no bad faith in
the abolition of the ATO as the latter was not simply restored in another name in the
person of the CAAP. Thus, we compare the ATO and the CAAP.

ATO was merely a sectoral office of the Department of Transportation and

Communications (DOTC) and as suchacted within the supervision of the latter and
budgeted under it. As Section 2 of E.O. No. 125-A, series of 1987 deleted Section 12

of E.O. No. 125, seriesof 1987 which delineated the functions of the former BAT, werely on R.A.
No. 776 in citing the functions of the CAA which were succeeded by the ATO through the powers
and duties of the CAA Administrator. Section 32 of R.A. No. 776 provides:
SEC. 32. Powers and duties of the Administrator. - Subject to the general control and
supervision of the Department Head, the Administrator shall have among others, the
following powers and duties:

(1) To carry out the purposes and policies established in this Act; to enforce the
provisions of, the rules and regulations issued in pursuance to, said Act; and he shall
primarily be vested with authority to take charge of the technical and operational phase
of civil aviation matters.

(2) To designate and establish civil airways, and to acquire, control, operate and
maintain along such airways, air navigation facilities and to chart such airways and
arrange for their publication including the aeronautical charts or maps required by the
international aeronautical agencies by utilizing the equipment, supplies or assistance of
existing agencies of the government as far as practicable.

(3) To issue airman’s certificate specifying the capacity in which the holder thereof is
authorized to serve as airman in connection with aircraft and shall be issued only upon
the finding that the applicant is properly qualified and physically able to perform the
duties of the position. The certificate shall contain such terms, conditions and
limitations as the Administrator may determine to be necessary to assure safety in air
commerce: Provided, however,That the airman’s license shall be issued only to qualified
persons who are citizens of the Philippines or qualified citizens of countries granting
similar rights and privileges to citizens of the Philippines.

(4) To issue airworthiness certificate for aircraft which shall prescribe the duration of
such certificate, the type of service for which the aircraft may be used, and such other
terms and conditions and limitations as are required.

(5) To issue air carrier operating certificate and to establish minimum safety standards
for the operation of the air carrier to whom such certificate is issued. The air carrier
operating certificate shall be issued only to aircrafts registered under the provisions of
this Act.

(6) To issue type certificate for aircraft, aircraft engine, propellers and appliances.

(7) To inspect, classify and rateany air navigation facilities and aerodromes available for
the use of aircraft as to its suitability for such use and to issue a certificate for such air
navigation facility and aerodrome; and to determine the suitability offoreign
aerodromes, air navigation facilities as well as air routes to be used prior to the
operation of Philippine registered aircraft in foreign air transportation and from time to
time thereafter as may be required in the interest of safety in air commerce.

(8) To issue certificates of persons or civil aviation schools giving instruction in flying,
repairstations, and other air agencies and provide for the examination and rating
thereof.

(9) To promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary in the interest of safety in
air commerce pertaining to the issuance of the airman’s certificate, including licensing
of operating and mechanical personnel, type certificate for aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers and appliances, airworthiness certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air
agency certificate, navigation facilityand aerodrome certificate; air traffic routes; radio
and aeronautical telecommunications and air navigation aids; aircraft accident inquiry;
aerodromes, both public and private owned; construction of obstructions to
aerodromes; registration of aircraft; search and rescue; facilitation of air transport;
operations of aircraft, both for domestic and international, including scheduled and
non-scheduled; meteorology in relation to civil aviation; rules of the air; air traffic
services; rules for prevention of collision of aircraft; identification of aircraft; rules for
safe altitudes of flight; and such other rules, regulations, standards, governing other
practices, methods, procedures as the Administrator may find necessary and
appropriate to provide adequately for safety, regularity and efficiency in air commerce
and air navigation.

(10) To provide for the enforcement of the rules and regulations issued under the
provisions of this Act and to conduct investigations for violations thereto. In
undertaking such investigation, to require by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, the
attendance and testimony of witness, the production of books, papers, documents,
exhibit matters, evidence, or the taking of depositions before any person authorized to
administer oath. Refusal to submit tothe reasonable requirements of the investigation
committee shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(11) To investigate accidents involving aircraft and report to the Civil Aeronautics Board
the facts, conditions and circumstances relating to the accidents and the probable cause
thereof; and to make such recommendations to the Civil Aeronautics Board as may tend
to prevent similar accidents in the future: Provided, That when any accident has
resulted in serious or fatal injury, the Civil Aeronautics Board shall make public such
report and recommendations: And provided, further, That no report on any accident or
any statement made during any investigation or during hearing relative to such accident
may be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any civil suitgrowing out of any
matter revealed within any such report, statement, investigation or hearing.

(12) To collect and disseminate information relative to civil aeronautics and the
development of air commerce and the aeronautical industry; to exchange with foreign
governments, information pertaining to civil aeronautics; and to provide for direct
communication all matters relating to the technical or operational phase of aeronautics
with international aeronautical agencies.

(13) To acquire and operate such aircraft as may be necessary to execute the duties and
functions of the Civil Aeronautics Administration prescribed in this Act.

(14) To plan, design, acquire, establish, construct, operate, improve, maintain, and
repair necessary aerodromes and other air navigation facilities.

(15) To impose and fix, except those mentioned in section forty, paragraph twenty-five
and hereinafter provided, reasonable charges and fees for the use of government
aerodromes or air navigation facilities; for services rendered by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration in the rating of any aerodrome or air navigation facilities, civil aviation
schools and instructions, aircraft repair stations, and aircraft radio and aeronautical
telecommunications stations. To collectand receive charges and fees for the registration
of aircraft and for the issuance and/or renewal of licenses or certificates for aircraft,
aircraft engines, propellers and appliances, and airmen as provided in this Act.

(16) To fix the reasonable charges to be imposed in the use of privately owned air
navigation facilities and aerodromes.

(17) To impose fines and/or civil penalties and make compromises in respect thereto.

(18) To adopt a system for registration of aircraft as hereinafter provided.

(19) To participate actively with the largest possible degree in the development of
international standardization of practices in aviation matters important to safe,
expeditious, and easy navigation, and to implement as far as practicable the
international standards, recommended practices, and policies adopted by appropriate
international aeronautical agencies.

(20) To exercise and perform itspowers and duties under this Act consistent with any
obligation assumed by the Republic of the Philippines in any treaty, convention or
agreement on civil aviation matters.

(21) To cooperate, assist and coordinate with any research and technical agency of the
Government on matters relating to research and technical studies on design, materials,
workmanship, construction, performance, maintenance and operation of aircraft,
aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and air navigation facilities including aircraft
fuel and oil: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorizethe
duplication of the laboratory research, activities or technical studies of any existing
governmental agency.

(22) To designate such prohibited and danger areas, in consonance with the
requirements of the international aeronautical agencies and national security.

(23) To issue, deny, cancel or revoke any certificate, permit or license pertaining to
aircraft, airmen, and air agencies: Provided, That any order denying, cancelling,
revoking the certificate, permit or license may be appealed to the Civil Aeronautics
Board, whose decisions shall be final within fifteen days from the dateof notification of
such denial, cancellation, or revocation.

(24) To administer, operate, manage, control, maintain and develop the Manila
International Airport and all government-owned aerodromes except those controlled or
operated by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including such powers and duties as:
(a) to plan, design, construct, equip, expand, improve, repair or alter aerodromes or
such structures, improvements, or air navigation facilities; (b) to enter into, make and
execute contracts of any kind with any person, firm, or public or private corporation or
entity; (c) to acquire, hold, purchase, or lease any personal or real property, right of
ways, and easements which may be proper or necessary: Provided, That no real property
thus acquired and any other real property of the Civil Aeronautics Administration shall
be sold without the approval of the President of the Philippines; (d) to grant to any
person, such concession or concession rights on space or property within or upon the
aerodrome for purposes essential or appropriate to the operation of the aerodrome upon
such terms and conditionsas the Administrator may deem proper: Provided, however,
That the exclusive use of any landing strip or runway within the aerodrome shall not be
granted to any person; (e) to determine the types of aircraft that may be allowed to use
any of the aerodromes under its management and control in the interest of public safety;
(f) to prescribe, adopt, establish and enforce such rules and regulations consistent with
existing laws, rules and regulations, as may be necessary for the safety, health and
welfare of the public within the aerodrome.

(25) To determine, fix, impose, collect and receive landing fees, parking space fees,
royalties on sales or deliveries, direct or indirect, to any aircraft for its use of aviation
gasoline, oil and lubricants, spare parts, accessories, and supplies, tools, other royalties,
fees or rentals for the use of any of the property under its management and control.

As used in this sub-section:

(1) "Landing fees" refer to all charges for the use of any landing strip or runway by any
aircraft landing or taking off at an aerodrome.

(2) "Terminal fees" refer to charges for parking at or near the ramp, terminal area, or
building, for the purposes of loading or unloading passengers and/or cargo.

(3) "Royalties" refer to all charges based on gross business or sales, or gross or net
profit.

(4) "Supplies" include any and all items of whatever nature or description which may be
necessary for, or incidental to, the operation of an aircraft.

(26) To grant permit to civil aircraft or persons to carry instrument or photographic

device to be used for aerial photography or taking of pictures by photograph or
sketching of any part of the Philippines.

On the other hand, the CAAP is anindependent regulatory body with quasi-judicial and
quasi-legislative powers and possessing corporate attributes,

having an authorized capitalstock of fifty billion pesos (₱50,000,000,000.00) which shall be

fully subscribed by the Republic of the Philippines.

It is attached to the DOTC only for the purpose of policy coordination.

While the Director General is responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all
duties including the control over all personnel and activities of the CAAP,

the latter’s corporate powers are vested in its Board of Directors.

It enjoys fiscal autonomy to fund its operations.

 With quasi-judicial powers, the Director General has the power and authority to inspect
aviation equipment and also from time to time, for any reason, re-inspect or reexamine the
same.

If, as a result of any such re-inspection or reexamination, or if, as a result of any other
investigation made by the Director General,he determines that safety in civil aviation or
commercial air transport and the public interest requires, the Director General may issue an
order amending, modifying, suspending or revoking, in whole or in part, any airworthiness
certificate, airman certificate, air operator certificate or certificate for any airport, school, or
approved maintenance organization.

Possessing quasi-legislative powers, CAAP’s Board may authorize the Director General to issue
or amend rules of procedures and practice as may be required, or issue and adopt rules and
regulations and other issuances of the ICAO.

Vested with corporate attributes, said Board, through a resolution, may empower the Director
General to enter into, make and execute contracts of any kind with any person, firm, or public or
private corporation.

Moreover, notable under R.A. No. 9497 is the establishment of permanent offices like
the (a) Air Traffic Service; (b) Air Navigation Service; (c) Aerodrome Development and
Management Service; (d) Administrative and Finance Service;

(e) the Office of Enforcement and Legal Service;

and (f) the Flight Standards Inspectorate Service.

The law also mandated the Director General to organize the Aircraft Accident Investigation and
Inquiry Board.

Furthermore, R.A. No. 9497 manifested the adherence ofthe country to, and the
adoption of, the Chicago Convention and ICAO standards

and other international conventions

with respect to matters relating to civil aviation.

After comparing the features and functions of the ATO and the CAAP, we find that
CAAP indeed assumed the functions of the ATO. However, the overlap in their functions
does not mean there was no valid abolition of the ATO.

The CAAP has new and expanded features and functions which are intended to meetthe
growing needs of a globally competitive civil aviation industry, adherent to internationally
recognized standards. Thus, in National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v.
Civil Service Commission,

we held that:
if the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions, duties
or powers, so that itmay be said in fact to create an office different from the one
abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be
considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The
same is true if one office is abolished and its duties,for reasons of economy are given to
an existing officer or office.

To be precise, the case before us deals only with the issue of abolition and not removal.
Besides, petitioner has failed to provide in detail any ATO personnel who had been
removed from office on account of R.A. No. 9497.

Apropos then is our ruling in Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board v.
Barin,

to wit:

However, abolition of an office and itsrelated positions is different from removal of an

incumbent from his office. Abolition and removal are mutually exclusive concepts. From
a legal standpoint, there is no occupant in an abolished office. Where there is no
occupant, there is no tenure to speak of. Thus, impairment of the constitutional
guarantee of security of tenure doesnot arise in the abolition of an office.On the other
hand, removal implies that the office and its related positions subsist and that the
occupants are merely separated from their positions.

Based on the premise that there was a valid abolition of ATO, in the absence of any bad
faith, we rule thatthe ATO employees’ right to security of tenure was not violated.

The Court cannot agree to petitioner’s supposition that there should be automatic
absorption of all ATO employees to the CAAP. Indeed, there is no such thing as a vested
interest in a public office, let alone an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional
offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be
said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.

Public office is not property but a "public trust or agency." While their right to due process may
be relied upon by public officials to protect their security of tenure which, in a limited sense, is
analogous to property,

such fundamental right to security of tenure cannot be invoked against a valid abolition of office
effected by the legislature itself.

However, it bears stressing that former ATO employees are not left without succor.
Aside from the retirement packages provided for by R.A. No. 9497, the same law
mandates that former qualified ATO employees should be accorded preference in filling
up CAAP plantilla positions. Section 12 of R.A. No. 9497 provides:

SEC. 12. Personnel. - Qualified existing personnel of the Air Transportation Office
(ATO) shall be given preference in the filling up of plantilla positions created inthe
Authority, subject to existing civil service rules and regulations.
This preference is resonated in Section 59(b), Rule IX of the IRR, which provides:

SECTION 59. Abolition of the Air Transportation Office.

xxxx

b. Qualified Air Transportation Office (ATO) personnel shall be given preference in the
filling-up of CAAP plantilla positions subject to existing civil service rules and
regulations.

Inasmuch as we accorded respect to the mandate of the law in abolishing the ATO, such
preference in favor of qualified ATO employees, subject to existing civil service rules and
regulations, should likewise be strictly heeded in favor of the said employees. All
respondents must abide by this directive. No less than R.A. No. 9497 requires it.

Finally, we resolve the third issue in the negative.

A petition for prohibition will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested.
Mere abuse ofdiscretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of
discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
because of passion or hostility.

We hold that there is no grave abuse of discretion when Section 60 of the IRR provided
for a "hold-over" status on the part of ATO employees.

A careful perusal of Section 86 of R.A. No. 9497 reveals that the transfer of ATO
personnel, unless they opted to retire from the service, to the CAAP implies the
application of the hold-over principle. There being no express, much less implied
prohibition of the application of the hold-over principle in R.A. No. 9497 per se, such
proviso in the latter’s IRR does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

In Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan,

we held:

Absent an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an

officer is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has
qualified.The legislative intent of not allowing holdover must be clearly expressed or at
least implied in the legislative enactment, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that the
law-making body favors the same.

The reason for the application of the hold-over principle is clearly stated also in Lecaroz,

to wit:

Indeed, the law abhors a vacuum in public offices, and courts generally indulge in the
strong presumption against a legislative intent to create, by statute, a condition which
may result in an executive or administrative office becoming, for any period of time,
wholly vacant or unoccupied by one lawfully authorized to exercise its functions. This is
founded on obvious considerations ofpublic policy, for the principle of holdover is
specifically intended to prevent public convenience from suffering because of a vacancy
and to avoid a hiatus in the performance of government functions.

Indeed, the application of the hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction
of official business and prevents a hiatus in government. Thus, cases of extreme
necessity justify the application of the hold-over principle.

Petitioner itself states and this Court, without doubt, agrees that the CAAP is an agency
highly imbued with public interest. It is of rational inference that a hiatus therein would
be disastrous not only to the economy, tourism and trade of the country but more so on
the safety and security of aircraft passengers, may they be Filipino citizens or foreign
nationals.

A final note.

On April 9, 2014, based on a March 2014 FAA review of the CAAP, the FAA opined that
the Republic ofthe Philippines complies with the international safety standards set by
the ICAO and has been granted a Category 1 rating.

The European Union also lifted the ban on Philippine carriers.

Thus, it cannot be ignored that the creation of the CAAP through R.A. No. 9497, in one way or
another, helped in upgrading the country’s status in the arena of civil aviation. Absent any
violation of the Constitution and the other pertinent laws, rules and regulations, this Court
would not hinder in the continuous growth and improvement of the civil aviation industry of the
country.

WHEREFORE, the present petition for prohibition with prayer for injunctive reliefs is
DISMISSED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(On official leave)

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO*
Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO** PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

 Acting Chief Justice Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On official leave) (On official leave)

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA* LUCAS P. BERSAMIN*
Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(No Part)
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA***
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

* On official leave.

** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1860 dated November 4, 2014.

*** No Part.