NLTDRA v.

CSC
Abolition of a position does not involve or mean removal
for the reason that removal implies that the post
subsists and that one is merely separated therefrom.
After abolition, there is in law no occupant. Thus, there
can be no tenure to speak of. It is in this sense that from
the standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise.

Maniego v. People
For the purposes of the Penal Code, the standard
distribution in the law of public officers between
"officer" and "employee" is obliterated.
Laurel vs. Desierto

Nothing is better settled in our law than that the

abolition of an office within the competence of a
legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no
infirmity. A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it
is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy
more efficient.
There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate
in an office, or even 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.

A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for

determining the nature of the position. It is not
conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms no
part of the office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the
office is provided for it is a naked or honorary office, and
is supposed to be accepted merely for the public good.
Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may be
characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a
lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which
salary, compensation or fees are attached. But it is a
public office, nonetheless.

Secretary of DOTC v. Mabalot

Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas

[I]t is apropos to reiterate the elementary rule in

administrative law and the law on public officers that a
public office may be created through any of the
following modes, to wit, either (1) by the Constitution
(fundamental law), (2) by law (statute duly enacted by
Congress), or (3) by authority of law.

Appointments may not be to a specified public office but

rather appointments to particular positions or ranks. An
employee may be reassigned from one organizational
unit to another in the same agency provided that such
reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank,
status and salary.

Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan

Segovia vs. Noel
The word "includes" used in defining a public officer in
Sec. 2(b) of R.A. No. 3019 indicates that the definition is
not restrictive.

Though there is no vested right to an office, which may

not be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has,

in a sense, a right to his office. If that right is to be

taken away by statute, the terms should be clear in
which the purpose is stated.