Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > July 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31352 July 29, 1983 - JORGE DELECTOR v. ANTONIO M. OGAYAN

208 Phil. 684:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31352. July 29, 1983.]

JORGE DELECTOR, PEDRO LADRENA, ALEJANDRO ALDAS, ALEJANDRO AGUADO, and MIGUEL AGNER, Petitioners-Appellants, v. ANTONIO M. OGAYAN, in his capacity as Mayor of Palo, and in his private capacity, WILFREDO CORREGIDOR, MIGUEL OREJOLA, APOLINARIO DACILLO, ILUMINADO PAJARES and DOMINADOR CHAVERRO, Respondents-Appellees.

Jesus Velasco for Petitioners-Appellants.

Z. Redeña for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE LAW; PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT; CONSTRUED. — Petitioners contend that they cannot be replaced by non-eligibles as this is prohibited by Section 23, Article VI of the Civil Service Law and thus, as provisional appointees, their services cannot be terminated at will by the appointing officer, except upon certification of appropriate eligibles by the Civil Service Commission or by a subsequent appointment of eligibles to the position. Therefore, at least the interest of public service, the petitioners state that they should be allowed to stay until eligibles are available. The contention is without merit. Petitioners are not provisional appointees as defined under Sec. 24(c) of Republic Act No. 1260. the Civil Service Act of 1959. There is absolutely no showing that the petitioners possess the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive or classified service and that whatever eligibility they posses is not appropriate for the positions to which they were appointed. What the law considers a provisional appointee is one with a civil service eligibility but different from that which is appropriate For the position to which he was appointed.

2. ID.; ID.; APPOINTMENT WITHOUT CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY. CONSIDERED TEMPORARY; APPOINTMENT HAVING NO FIXED TENURE, MAYBE TERMINATED ANYTIME EVEN WITHOUT CAUSE; ANY ATTEMPT TO APPROVE AS PROVISIONAL. AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF THE DISCRETION OF THE APPOINTING POWER. — Since petitioners did not possess any civil service eligibility, their appointments are considered temporary. It is a settled rule that temporary appointees may be terminated at any time even without cause. They have no fixed tenure. (Abrot v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 468) The Civil Service Commission cannot even legally approve their appointments as provisional as this act would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the discretion of the appointing power. (Matural v. Maglana, 113 SCRA 268).


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This petition for review seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (now Regional Trial Court), dismissing the petition for quo warranto which prayed for the ouster of respondents as policemen of Palo, Leyte, and for the petitioners’ reinstatement to the same positions.

At the pre-trial hearing, the parties submitted the case for decision on the following agreed facts:cralawnad

"1. That the petitioners are all duly appointed, have qualified and assumed office as Patrolman of the Palo Police Department, Palo, Leyte, with corresponding items in the annual budget of the municipality and their appointment duly approved by the Civil Service Commission all having been appointed on January 4, 1964, except Miguel Agner who was appointed on July 16, 1965.

"2. That upon dismissal of petitioners from the police force of Palo, Leyte, on January 1, 1968, respondent municipal mayor appointed on the same date the other respondents as special agents of his office force of Palo effective this fiscal year 1968-1969.

"3. That petitioners and respondents (except respondent municipal mayor) are not civil service eligibles.

"4. That prior to the appointment by respondent municipal mayor of the other respondents as special agents of his office, there were no existing positions of special agents in his office and those positions were created upon his assumption of office as municipal mayor on January 1, 1968."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent Judge Jesus N. Borromeo who is now Deputy Minister of Justice dismissed the petition, stating:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Thus, considering the undeniable fact that they are not civil service eligibles for the positions of municipal policemen, there should be no question that the dismissal of petitioners from the police force of Palo, Leyte, on January 1, 1968, cannot be legally assailable considering the well-known rule in this jurisdiction that a permanent appointment implies civil service eligibility, unless, of course, the position involved requires no such civil service eligibility (Sique v. Rabaya, G.R. No. L-11717, Dec. 27,1958) . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners made the following assignment of errors in this petition:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO LAW THAT NO APPOINTING OFFICIAL CAN REPLACE NON-ELIGIBLES BY OTHER SET OF NON-ELIGIBLES.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE CIRCULAR REFERRING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF NON-ELIGIBLES BY THOSE CERTIFIED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF ELIGIBLES AS MERELY DIRECTORY AND HAS NO BINDING FORCE AND LEGAL EFFECT.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DETERMINING WHETHER THE CIRCULAR OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF NON-ELIGIBLES IS FAIR, AND SOUND.

IV


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION.

With regard to the first assignment of error, petitioners contend that they cannot be replaced by non-eligibles as this is prohibited by Section 23, Article VI of the Civil Service Law and thus, as provisional appointees, their services cannot be terminated at will by the appointing officer, except upon certification of appropriate eligibles by the Civil Service Commission or by a subsequent appointment of eligibles to the position. (Petition, pp. 16-17, Rollo). Therefore, at least in the interest of public service, the petitioners state that they should be allowed to stay until eligibles are available. (Id., p. 18).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The contention is without merit. Petitioners are not provisional appointees. Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, the Civil Service Act of 1959 defines a provisional appointment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(c) Provisional Appointment. — A provisional appointment may be issued upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereto to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service, whenever a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service and there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


There is absolutely no showing that the petitioners possess the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive or classified service and that whatever eligibility they possess is not appropriate for the positions to which they were appointed. What the law considers a provisional appointee is one with a civil service eligibility but different from that which is appropriate for the position to which he was appointed. Since petitioners did not possess any civil service eligibility, their appointments are considered temporary. It is a settled rule that temporary appointees may be terminated at any time even without cause. They have no fixed tenure. (Abrot v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 468) The Civil Service Commission cannot even legally approve their appointments as provisional as this act would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the discretion of the appointing power. (Matural v. Maglana, 113 SCRA 268).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

This being the law, there is no necessity for us to rule on the other contentions of the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur.

Vasquez, J., on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30063 July 2, 1983 - GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. TEOFILO REYES, SR.

    208 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-45946 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BERNAT

    208 Phil. 252

  • G.R. No. L-51182 July 5, 1983 - HELMUT DOSCH v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 259

  • G.R. No. L-57875 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO T. SUÑGA

    208 Phil. 288

  • G.R. No. L-58199 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BELMONTE

    208 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-58910 July 5, 1983 - ROBERT DOLLAR COMPANY v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-62114 July 5, 1983 - ISIDRO BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    208 Phil. 314

  • G.R. No. L-32794 July 15, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO B. CALIXTRO

    208 Phil. 317

  • A.M. No. 779-Ret July 20, 1983 - IN RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT OF ATTY. MARCELO D. MENDIOLA

    208 Phil. 338

  • G.R. No. L-28632 July 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BANGON TANOG

    208 Phil. 343

  • G.R. No. L-31103 July 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO Z. LAKANDULA

    208 Phil. 350

  • G.R. No. L-34382 July 20, 1983 - THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES

    208 Phil. 359

  • G.R. No. L-36847 July 20, 1983 - SERAFIN B. YNGSON v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

  • G.R. No. L-59611 July 20, 1983 - LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CEBU CITY v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    208 Phil. 382

  • A.C. No. 1700 July 25, 1983 - OSCAR R. MANAHAN v. GREGORIO F. ORTEGA

    208 Phil. 387

  • A.C. No. 2311 July 25, 1983 - JAIME PELEJO v. PATERNO C. ZABALLERO

    208 Phil. 390

  • A.C. No. 2315 July 25, 1983 - ROSELA C. LU v. LAMBERTO LLAMERA

    208 Phil. 392

  • G.R. Nos. L-29182-83 July 25, 1983 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC. v. ALFONSO LIM

    208 Phil. 394

  • G.R. No. L-29230 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO ALVARADO, JR.

    208 Phil. 412

  • G.R. No. L-32072 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO AQUIATAN

    208 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-35102 July 25, 1983 - ANTONIO BORLONGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 437

  • G.R. No. L-35273 July 25, 1983 - IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. HONORABLE JUDGE, BRANCH I CFI OF NUEVA ECIJA

    208 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-36488 July 25, 1983 - CAPITAL INSURANCE SURETY CO., INC. v. RONQUILLO TRADING

    208 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-36789 July 25, 1983 - FELIPA CORDERO v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL

    208 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-38495 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO TOLEDO

    208 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-39235 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO GALICIA

    208 Phil. 472

  • G.R. No. L-40310 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO R. POSPOS

    208 Phil. 479

  • G.R. Nos. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983 - VICENTE DE LA CRUZ v. EDGARDO L. PARAS

    208 Phil. 490

  • G.R. Nos. L-47136-39 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO O. MANALANG

    208 Phil. 504

  • G.R. No. L-48319 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFRENIANO BALANE

    208 Phil. 537

  • G.R. No. L-50638 July 25, 1983 - LORETO J. SOLINAP v. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO

    208 Phil. 561

  • G.R. No. L-53741 July 25, 1983 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 566

  • G.R. No. L-55373 July 25, 1983 - GLICERIA CARANDANG-COLLANTES v. FELIX CAPUNO

    208 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-55413 July 25, 1983 - DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983 - LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY v. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

    208 Phil. 597

  • G.R. No. L-56441 July 25, 1983 - CLEMENCIO C. RAMIREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    208 Phil. 627

  • G.R. No. L-56450 July 25, 1983 - RODOLFO T. GANZON v. SANCHO Y. INSERTO

    208 Phil. 630

  • G.R. No. L-56655 July 25, 1983 - DATU TAGORANAO BENITO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 638

  • G.R. No. L-59546 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE CASAS

    208 Phil. 645

  • G.R. No. L-61349 July 25, 1983 - ANGELINA JAVIER v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 650

  • G.R. No. L-62097 July 25, 1983 - RODOLFO RIVERA v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

    208 Phil. 656

  • G.R. No. L-62810 July 25, 1983 - EULALIA MARTIN v. FABIAN VER

    208 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-63531 July 25, 1983 - HEIRS OF FELICIANO NANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 665

  • G.R. No. L-64033 July 25, 1983 - PROCESO SIDRO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    208 Phil. 671

  • A.C. No. 1251 July 29, 1983 - LILY LANGBID v. FELIX TIANGCO

    208 Phil. 675

  • G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983 - ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE v. MANASES G. REYES

    208 Phil. 678

  • G.R. No. L-31352 July 29, 1983 - JORGE DELECTOR v. ANTONIO M. OGAYAN

    208 Phil. 684

  • G.R. No. L-40504 July 29, 1983 - FORTUNATO RECENTES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

    208 Phil. 688

  • G.R. No. L-47410 July 29, 1983 - POLICARPIO CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 691

  • G.R. No. L-52831 July 29, 1983 - MANUEL R. DULAY v. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA

    208 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-60129 July 29, 1983 - LEONOR J. VDA. DE JAVELLANA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 706