March 1959 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > March 1959 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-11569 March 30, 1959 - ROGERIO GENDRALA v. TEOFISTO CORDOVA
105 Phil 370:
105 Phil 370:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-11569. March 30, 1959.]
ROGERIO GENDRALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TEOFISTO CORDOVA, ETC., Respondent-Appellee.
Palanca & Torres for Appellant.
City of Attorney Jesus S. Rodriguez for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES; REMOVAL WITHOUT CAUSE. — Temporary employees do not come under the constitutional guarantee against removal without case. They can legally be dismissed at any time.
2. ID.; ID.; POLICEMEN; REMOVAL WITHOUT PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION. — Although removed without previous investigation, appellant cannot invoke the protection accorded to municipal policemen by Republic Act No. 557 for the simple reason that he is a non-civil service eligible.
2. ID.; ID.; POLICEMEN; REMOVAL WITHOUT PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION. — Although removed without previous investigation, appellant cannot invoke the protection accorded to municipal policemen by Republic Act No. 557 for the simple reason that he is a non-civil service eligible.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., J.:
Removed from his position as policemen of Bacolod City without benefit of investigation, Rogerio Gendrala brought an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros to compel the Mayor of said city to reinstate him and pay him backpay, plus moral and exemplary damages. And the action having been dismissed in that court, he took the present appeal.
It appears from the agreed statement of facts that appellant was appointed policeman of Bacolod City on October 16, 1955; that he was not a civil service eligible and his appointment was merely temporary; that his position was newly created and the salary therefor was included in the city budget for the fiscal year 1955-1956, which was approved by the city council on November 14, 1955 and by the Secretary of Finance on January 18 of the following year; that previous to his dismissal he had never been accused of any crime or charged with any anomaly, irregularity of inefficiency in the performance of his duties; that though he had asked the mayor to reconsider his dismissal he did not appeal to the higher authorities; and that following his dismissal he was paid his total salary for the entire period of his service.
It is apparent at once that the appeal is without merit. Not being a civil service eligible and his appointment being merely temporary appellant could legally be dismissed at any time. (Cuadra v. Cordova, 103 Phil., 391; 54 Off. Gaz. [35], 8063 Galon v. Cordova, G. R. No. L-11515, November 29, 1958.) Though removed without previous investigation, he cannot invoke the protection accorded to municipal policemen by Republic Act No. 557 for the simple reason that he is a non-eligible. (Orais, et al v. Bibera, Et Al., 99 Phil., 1; 52 Off. Gaz., No. 6, 3015.) And being merely a temporary employee and with no civil service eligibility, he does not come under the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause. (Galon v. Cordova, supra, and cases cited therein.) As appellant’s dismissal was lawful, his action for reinstatement and damages was properly dismissed. Appellant’s case is, as a matter of fact, identical with those of Cuadra v. Cordova and Galon v. Cordova, supra, which were decided last year.
In view of the foregoing, the decision below is affirmed, but without special pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
It appears from the agreed statement of facts that appellant was appointed policeman of Bacolod City on October 16, 1955; that he was not a civil service eligible and his appointment was merely temporary; that his position was newly created and the salary therefor was included in the city budget for the fiscal year 1955-1956, which was approved by the city council on November 14, 1955 and by the Secretary of Finance on January 18 of the following year; that previous to his dismissal he had never been accused of any crime or charged with any anomaly, irregularity of inefficiency in the performance of his duties; that though he had asked the mayor to reconsider his dismissal he did not appeal to the higher authorities; and that following his dismissal he was paid his total salary for the entire period of his service.
It is apparent at once that the appeal is without merit. Not being a civil service eligible and his appointment being merely temporary appellant could legally be dismissed at any time. (Cuadra v. Cordova, 103 Phil., 391; 54 Off. Gaz. [35], 8063 Galon v. Cordova, G. R. No. L-11515, November 29, 1958.) Though removed without previous investigation, he cannot invoke the protection accorded to municipal policemen by Republic Act No. 557 for the simple reason that he is a non-eligible. (Orais, et al v. Bibera, Et Al., 99 Phil., 1; 52 Off. Gaz., No. 6, 3015.) And being merely a temporary employee and with no civil service eligibility, he does not come under the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause. (Galon v. Cordova, supra, and cases cited therein.) As appellant’s dismissal was lawful, his action for reinstatement and damages was properly dismissed. Appellant’s case is, as a matter of fact, identical with those of Cuadra v. Cordova and Galon v. Cordova, supra, which were decided last year.
In view of the foregoing, the decision below is affirmed, but without special pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
