Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > September 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26090 September 6, 1967 - ISIDRO B. RAMOS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET. AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26090. September 6, 1967.]

ISIDRO B. RAMOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET. AL., Respondents-Appellees.

Juan T. David and Salvador Nee-Estuye for Petitioner-Appellant.

Solicitor General for respondent Subido.

The Provincial Fiscal and Jose W. Diokno for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY; ELIGIBILITY FOR PATROLMAN NOT APPROPRIATE FOR POSITION OF CHIEF OF POLICE. — One who holds only a patrolman eligibility does not have an appropriate eligibility for Chief of Police. Considering the position and rank of patrolman and that of Chief of Police, the requirement of a different examination for eligibility to the latter position is reasonable and well within the powers of the Civil Service Commissioner, among others, "to enforce, execute and carry out the constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit system" (Sec. 16[b], Rep. Act No. 2260). The Philippine Constitution provides that "appointments in the Civil Service, except as to those which are policy determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature, shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations" (Sec. 1, Art. XII, Philippine Constitution). It cannot be denied that the appropriate examination to determine fitness for the position of Chief of Police is not that for patrolman but that for Chief of Police.

2. ID.; ID.; ID; EFFECT OF APPOINTMENT; CASE AT BAR. — The position in question is under the classified service; Ramos accepted his latest appointment thereto, dated July 1, 1963, without having the requisite appropriate civil service eligibility for said position. Accordingly, his appointment can only be deemed provisional and good only until replacement by one holding such appropriate eligibility, in no case to extend more than thirty days from receipt of the appointing officer of the list of eligibles (Ferrer v. Hechanova, L-24418, January 25, 1967). Receipt, as stated, of such list, in this case, took place on April 2 1964. Ramos’ last appointment therefore, extended at most only up to May 2, 1964. Castillo’s appointment in his place, on June 11, 1964 was therefore proper and valid.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner Isidro B. Ramos was first appointed policeman of Tanay, Rizal, on October 1, 1933, at the rate of P240,00 per annum. Subsequently, on October 2, 1937, he passed the patrolman (qualifying) examination given by the Civil Service Commission. Furthermore, he received promotions in salary on March 14, 1939 (raised to P276.00 per annum) and on September 1, 1939 (raised to P288.00 per annum).

On December 2, 1941, he was dismissed from the service due to immorality, without prejudice to reinstatement, subject, however, to existing civil service laws and rules.

Ramos was thereafter extended the following appointments:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Date Position Nature of Salary

Appointment Per Annum

February 1, 1942 Policeman of Tanay Temporary P324.00

May 4, 1943 Policeman of Tanay Temporary 300.00

March 16, 1946 Prov. Guard, Rizal Temporary 600.00

July 1, 1946 Prov. Guard, Rizal Temporary 720.00

July 1, 1948 Prov. Guard, Rizal Temporary 1,200.00

July 1, 1949 Prov. Guard, Rizal Temporary 1,260.00

October 1, 1951 Prov. Guard, Rizal Temporary 1,320.00

July 1, 1953 Prov. Guard, Rizal Permanent 1,440.00

July 1, 1958 Sgt. Prov. Guard, Rizal Permanent 1,560.00

Ramos continued in said last mentioned position up to March 31, 1960. On April 1, 1960 he was given a "permanent" appointment as Chief of Police of Tanay, Rizal, at the rate of P1,500.00 per annum. Said appointment was approved by the municipal council. After this, he received further so-called permanent appointments to the same position, raising his salary, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Date of Promotion Salary

July 1, 1960 P1,620.00

July 1, 1962 1,680.00

June 7, 1963 2,040.00

retroactive to July 1, 1962

July 1, 1963 2,280.00

Ramos’ last appointment as Chief of Police dated July 1, 1963 was received by the Civil Service Commissioner on November 18, 1963 and approved by him on March 24, 1964. Said approval however, was expressly stated to be only "for the period of actual service rendered to continue until replaced by an eligible but not beyond thirty days from the date of receipt thereof in the office of the provincial treasurer." Said date of receipt by the provincial treasurer of the Civil Service Commissioner’s aforesaid indorsement, attaching the list of eligibles, took place on April 2, 1964, at the latest.

Ramos had taken the Civil Service examination for the position of Chief of Police on November 23, 1963, but failed therein. So his only eligibility remained that of patrolman.

Now, meanwhile, on March 15, 1964, attempts were made to remove Ramos in a so-called reorganization of the police force. And finally on June 11, 1964, Guillermo Castillo, who had civil service eligibility for the position of Chief of Police, having passed the examination for said rank, was appointed Chief of Police of Tanay, Rizal.

Ramos, on November 12, 1964, filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition in the court of First Instance of Rizal, against the Civil Service Commissioner, the Mayor, the Municipal Treasurer and his newly-appointed successor, to declare illegal and to restrain respondents’ attempts to remove him from office. Preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court on November 21, 1964, directing the respondents "to refrain from implementing the order of removal from office of petitioner . . . from disturbing him in the discharge of his duties and from taking any further action thereon; and the respondent Guillermo B. Castillo from discharging the duties of Chief of Police of the municipality of Tanay, Rizal."cralaw virtua1aw library

On April 7, 1965, respondent Castillo died. Nonetheless, the case proceeded. And on March 2, 1966, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment, ruling that Ramos’ latest appointment was void for lack of municipal council approval; that at any rate, the same was to last only not more than thirty days from receipt of the list of eligibles and thus had expired when his successor was appointed; but that he should be paid salaries from November 21, 1964 — date of issuance of preliminary injunction — up to the date of judgment, as de facto officer.

Ramos appealed to Us to raise the purely legal question of whether his patrolman eligibility is appropriate for the position of Chief of Police, thereby rendering his latest appointment thereto permanent.

We rule that appellant’s eligibility was not appropriate; that his term of office lasted until May 2, 1964, thirty days after receipt of the list of eligibles; that respondent Castillo’s subsequent appointment to the same office was valid and effective; and that Castillo’s death on April 7, 1965 left the position vacant up to the present, unless another valid appointment had supervened in the meantime.

As of July 1, 1963, the date of Ramos’ latest appointment, the position of Chief of Police had a separate civil service eligibility requirement. It is clear therefore that one who holds only a patrolman eligibility does not have an appropriate eligibility for Chief of Police. Considering the difference between the position and rank of patrolman and that of Chief of Police, the requirement of a different examination for eligibility to the latter position is reasonable and well within the powers of the Civil Service Commissioner, among others, "to enforce, execute and carry out the constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit system" (Sec. 16[b], Rep. Act 2260). The Philippine Constitution provides that: "Appointments in the Civil Service, except as to those which are policy determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature, shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations." (Sec. 1, Art XII, Phil. Const.) It cannot be denied that the appropriate examination to determine fitness for the position of Chief of Police is not that for patrolman but that for Chief of Police.

Furthermore, Sec. 23 of Rep. Act 2260 expressly states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Qualification in an appropriate examination shall be required for appointment to positions in the competitive or classified service in accordance with the civil service rules, except as otherwise provided for in this Act: Provided, That whenever there is a civil service eligible available for appointment, no person who is not such an eligible shall be appointed even in a temporary capacity to any vacant position in the competitive or classified service in the government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation: Provided, further, That non-eligible employees who, upon the approval of this Act, have rendered five years or more of continuous and satisfactory service in classified positions and who meet the other qualifications for appointment to their positions, shall, within one year from the approval of this Act, be given qualifying examinations in which their length of satisfactory service shall be accorded preferred consideration: Provided, further, That those who fail in those examinations as well as those who fail or refuse to take the examinations when offered shall be replaced by eligibles:"

The position in question is under the classified service; Ramos accepted his latest appointment thereto, dated July 1, 1963, without having the requisite appropriate civil service eligibility for said position. Accordingly, his appointment can only be deemed provisional and good only until replacement by one holding such appropriate eligibility, in no case to extend more than thirty days from receipt of the appointing officer of the list of eligibles (Ferrer v. Hechanova, L-24418, January 25, 1967).

Receipt, as stated, of such list, in this case took place on April 2, 1964. Ramos’ last appointment therefore extended at most only up to May 2, 1964. Castillo’s appointment in his place on June 11, 1964 was therefore proper and valid.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. Costs against appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., took no part.




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






September-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 492 September 5, 1967 - OLEGARIA BLANZA, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN ARCANGEL

  • G.R. No. L-19831 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BUCO

  • G.R. No. L-21184 September 5, 1967 - SIMEON CORDOVIS, ET AL. v. BASILISA A. DE OBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22146 September 5, 1967 - SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING v. QUA CHEE GAN

  • G.R. No. L-22492 September 5, 1967 - BASILAN ESTATES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26703 September 5, 1967 - IN RE: MARMOLITO R. CATELO v. CHIEF OF THE CITY JAIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26734 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO PADERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 5, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26090 September 6, 1967 - ISIDRO B. RAMOS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26951 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-23936 September 13, 1967 - IN RE: HAO GUAN SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24092 September 13, 1967 - GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24836 September 13, 1967 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18722 September 14, 1967 - CATALINA M. DE LEON, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19570 September 14, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA

  • A.C. No. 540 September 15, 1967 - PEDRO C. RELATIVO v. MARIANO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21504 September 15, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22734 September 15, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANUEL B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-27125 September 15, 1967 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21166 September 15, 1967 - BONIFACIO GESTOSANI, ET AL. v. INSULAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 15, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21691 September 15, 1967 - RAMON V. MITRA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19713 September 18, 1967 - IN RE: BONIFACIO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22645 September 18, 1967 - CARLOS CALUBAYAN, ET AL. v. CIRILO PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-23174 September 18, 1967 - CONCEPCION MACABINGKIL v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27934 September 18, 1967 - CONSTANTE PIMENTEL v. ANGELINO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-23927 September 19, 1967 - TALLER BISAYAS EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. PANAY ALLIED WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23716 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24091 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20812 September 22, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO PO CHU SAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20942 September 22, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. D. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. L-19892 September 25, 1967 - GERONIMO GATMAITAN v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20706 September 25, 1967 - MARIANO LAPINA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21804 September 25, 1967 - TERESA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20055 September 27, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 500 September 27, 1967 - TAHIMIK RAMIREZ v. JAIME S. NER

  • G.R. No. L-21209 September 27, 1967 - CHIENG HUNG v. TAM TEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22456 September 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO SALUNGA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20303 October 31, 1967 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23233 September 28, 1967 - LUIS ENGUERRA v. ANTONIO DOLOSA

  • G.R. No. L-24384 September 28, 1967 - MARGARITA IÑIGO v. ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23463 September 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS CLEMENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20827 September 29, 1967 - ADELA C. SALAS-GATLIN v. CORAZON AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21749 September 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-21879 September 29, 1967 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

  • G.R. No. L-21876 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISES INC. v. SOLEDAD NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21985 September 29, 1967 - AMPARO CRUZ v. ROSA HERNANDEZ NALDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22261 September 29, 1967 - ENRIQUE BALDISIMO v. CFI OF CAPIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967 - REYNALDO C. VILLASEÑOR v. MAXIMO ABAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23666 September 29, 1967 - EUSTAQUIO AMOREN, ET AL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24591 September 29, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27266 September 29, 1967 - FEDERICO G. REAL, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19978 September 29, 1967 - CECILIO RAFAEL v. EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND INSPECTION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20940 September 29, 1967 - BERNARDO LONARIA v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. HOBART DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21979 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. ATLAS TRADING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22096 September 29, 1967 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22119 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. MELANIO SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967 - IN RE: EDWIN M. VILLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22621 September 29, 1967 - JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ v. JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27420 September 29, 1967 - RENATO L. AMPONIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21655 September 29, 1967 - FERNANDO CORPUZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22107 September 30, 1967 - CONSTANTINO TIRONA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23655 September 30, 1967 - EMILIA GABON, ET AL. v. NICANOR G. JORGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27535 September 30, 1967 - FELIX LOMUGDANG v. PATERNO JAVIER