Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > April 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

103 Phil 391:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11602. April 21, 1958.]

ALFREDO CUADRA, Petitioner, v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA, in his capacity as Mayor of Bacolod City, Respondents.

Palanca & Torres for Appellant.

City Attorney Jes�s S. Rodriguez for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; POLICE FORCE; APPOINTMENT OF ONE WHO ALREADY HELD GOVERNMENT POSITIONS; RULE PROVIDING AGES BETWEEN 21 AND 30 DOES NOT APPLY. — Section 17 of Executive Order No. 175, series of 1930 only applies to one who desires to take a civil service examination for initial appointment as to which the age of the examinee must be between 21 and 30 and not to the appointment of one who had already held several positions in the government.

2. ID.; TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT; TENURE OF OFFICE AT PLEASURE OF APPOINTING POWER. — A temporary appointment is similar to one made in an acting capacity, the essence of which lies in its temporary character and its terminability at pleasure by the appointing power. And one who bears such an appointment cannot complain if it is terminated at a moment’s notice.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for mandamus filed before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental seeking petitioner’s reinstatement as a policeman of the City of Bacolod and the payment of his back salaries from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. Respondent in his answer set up the defense that petitioner has been removed from the service in accordance with law.

The case was submitted on an agreed stipulation of facts. Thereafter, the trial court rendered decision holding that the appointment of petitioner was not in accordance with law and so his dismissal was proper. It consequently dismissed the petition. From this decision, petitioner appealed.

The important facts to be considered in this appeal are: Petitioner was not a civil service eligible. He was temporarily appointed as member of the police force of Bacolod City on November 11, 1955. The position to which he was appointed was a newly created one, the salary for which was included in the budget for the fiscal year 1955-1956. This budget was approved by the City Council on November 14, 1955, and by the Secretary of Finance on January 18, 1956. Petitioner was paid his salary for the service he had rendered from the date of his appointment to the date of his removal. Petitioner is a high school graduate and had been employed before the war in the City Engineer’s Office of Bacolod City for about two years and was later transferred to the Patrol Division of Bacolod Police Department until the coming of the Japanese in May, 1942. He was also employed as confidential agent of former Mayor Amante and served in that capacity from 1953 to 1954. He was never accused of any crime nor were charges filed against him before his dismissal.

In justifying the dismissal of petitioner from the service, the trial court gave as its only reason the fact that he was already 47 years, 3 months and 13 days old when he was appointed to the position of member of the police force of Bacolod City and as such he was disqualified for such appointment in the light of Section 17 of Executive Order No. 175, series of 1930, which provides in part that "To be eligible for examination for initial appointment, a candidate must be a citizen of the Philippines, between the ages of twenty-one and thirty, of good moral habits and conduct, without any criminal record, and must not have been expelled or dishonorably discharged from the civil or military employment." It is claimed by appellant that such ruling is erroneous because such provision of the Executive Order only applies to one who desires to take a civil service examination and not to the appointment of one who, like appellant, had already held several positions in the government.

There is no merit in this claim. Section 17 above referred to specifically provides that "To be eligible for examination for initial appointment, a candidate must be a citizen of the Philippines, between the ages of twenty-one and thirty", which terms are clear enough to raise any doubt as to their import. They refer to an examination for initial appointment, and nothing else, as to which the age of the examinee must be between 21 and 30. This interpretation appears more justified when we consider Section 16 of the same Executive Order which provides that "The Commission of Civil Service shall announce from time to time the date and place of examination to qualify for the police service, which shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service law and Rules."cralaw virtua1aw library

But there is one argument which justifies the separation from the service of petitioner and that refers to the fact that when he was appointed he was not a civil service eligible and his appointment was merely temporary in nature. His appointment being temporary does not give him any definite tenure of office but makes it dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power. A temporary appointment is similar to one made in an acting capacity, the essence of which lies in its temporary character and its terminability at pleasure by the appointing power. And one who bears such an appointment cannot complain if it is terminated at a moment’s notice.

Thus, in Villanosa, Et. Al. v. Alera, Et Al., G. R. No. L-10586, May 29, 1957, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Since it is an admitted fact that the nature of the appointments extended to petitioners was merely temporary, the same cannot acquire the character of permanent simply because the items occupied refer to permanent positions. What characterizes an appointment is not the nature of the item filled but the nature of the appointment extended. If such were not the case, then there would never be temporary appointments for permanent positions. This is absurd. The appointments being temporary, the same have the character of ‘acting appointments’ the essence of which is that they are temporary in nature. Thus, in Austria v. Amante, 79 Phil., 780, this Court stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Lastly, the appointment of petitioner by the President of the Philippines was merely as Acting Mayor. It is elementary in the law of public officers and in administrative practice that such an appointment is merely temporary, good until another permanent appointment is issued, either in favor of the incumbent acting mayor or in favor of another. In the last contingency, as in the case where the permanent appointment fell to the lot of respondent, Jose L. Amante the acting mayor must surrender the office to the lucky appointee.’

Reiterating this doctrine this Court in Castro v. Solidum, G. R. No. L-7750, June 30, 1955, declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘There is no dispute that petitioner has been merely designated by the President as Acting Provincial Governor of Romblon on September 11, 1953. Such being the case, his appointment is merely temporary or good until another one is appointed in his place. This happened when the President appointed respondent Solidum on January 6, 1954 to take his place.’

"It is, therefore, clear that the appointments of petitioners, being temporary in nature, can he terminated at pleasure by the appointing power, there being no need to show that the termination is for cause (Mendez v. Ganzon, 101 Phil., 48)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




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






April-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 April 16, 1958 - IN RE: CELSO T. OLIVA

    103 Phil 312

  • G.R. Nos. L-10206-08 April 16, 1958 - PHILIPPINES CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT LINES INC. v. EMILIANO AJON, ET AL.

    103 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10419 April 16, 1958 - JULIO PAREJA v. PAZ PAREJA

    103 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-10783 April 16, 1958 - ESTRELLA O. ROCHA v. JUAN B. CORDIS

    103 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

    103 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-11192 April 16, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRlGUEZ

    103 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 341

  • G.R. Nos. L-6106-07 April 18, 1958 - MADRIGAL v. HANSON, ORTH AND TEVENSON

    103 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-9300 April 18, 1958 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.

    103 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. L-10200 April 18, 1958 - IN RE: DY TIAN SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-10414 April 18, 1958 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. TEODULO M. CRUZ

    103 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-10886 April 18, 1958 - LEONCIA E. STO. DOMINGO v. URBANA STO. DOMINGO

    103 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

    103 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-11656 April 18, 1958 - MARIA DAVID v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-10724 April 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES RABA

    103 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-11323 April 21, 1958 - BENJAMIN GEONANGA v. C. N. HODGES

    103 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

    103 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-8564 April 23, 1958 - FRANCISCO PELAEZ v. LUZON LUMBER COMPANY

    103 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 - SANTOS EVANGELISTA v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-11185 April 23, 1958 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11755 April 23, 1958 - FLORENCIO SENO v. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-9957 April 20, 1958 - BAYANI SUBIDO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    103 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-10548 April 25, 1958 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO, ET AL. v. FELISA A. AFABLE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-10564 April 25, 1958 - MANDIAN (MANOBA) v. DIONISIO LEONG

    103 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-10631 April 25, 1958 - JOSE GARRIDO v. JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS

    103 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-10749 April 26, 1958 - BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-10936 April 25, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INDUSTRIAL TEXTILES COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10981 April 25, 1958 - ANACLETO LUISON v. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA

    103 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-9791 April 28, 1958 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    103 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

    103 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-10183 April 28, 1958 - RAQUEL ADORABLE v. IRINEA INACALA

    103 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10214 April 28, 1958 - IN RE: DSNIEL NG TENG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-10552 April 28, 1958 - ALFREDO ERAUDA, ET AL. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10799 April 28, 1958 - URSULA JOSE DE VILLABONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-10845 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO LUCERO

    103 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-10875 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO

    103 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10935 April 28, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-11262 April 28, 1958 - CARMEN R. CASTILLO v. JUAN C. PAJO

    103 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-11381 April 28, 1958 - ATKINS KROLL & CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-11584 April 28, 1958 - MANUEL ARANETA, ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-12120 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO AGITO

    103 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-12202 April 28, 1958 - FILOMENO DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-9064-67 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SORIANO L. ALCARAZ

    103 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-10215 April 30, 1958 - ANDRES E. VARELA v. CRISTINA MARAJAS

    103 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-10556 April 30, 1958 - RICARDO GURREA v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

    103 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-10582 April 30, 1958 - CONSTANCIO MANANSALA v. ANTONIO HERAS

    103 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-10718 April 30, 1958 - M. M. DE LOS REYES v. CORONET

    103 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-10792 April 30, 1958 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    103 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO BUENO

    103 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-11050 April 30, 1958 - CESAR VARGAS v. VICENTE S. TUASON

    103 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-11052 April 30, 1958 - MILAGROS TEJUCO v. E. R. SQUIBB & SON PHILIPPINE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-11068 April 30, 1958 - J. MARIANO DE SANTOS v. CATALINO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-11135 April 30, 1958 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    103 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-11326 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO MANANGCO

    103 Phil 604

  • G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520 April 30, 1958 - INES PORCIUNCULA v. NICOLAS E. ADAMOS

    103 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11617 April 30, 1958 - JOSE M. GARCIA v. MANUEL M. MUÑOZ

    103 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-11782 April 30, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO R. VILLAROSA

    103 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-11868 April 30, 1958 - SERGIO G. MARTINEZ v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF LABASON

    103 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. L-12646 April 30, 1958 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE v. RUFINO P. HALILI

    103 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958 - CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    103 Phil 643