Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957
JUAN B. MENDEZ, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
RODOLFO GANZON, and THE CITY OF ILOILO, respondents-appellees.
Benedicto, Bayot and Jimenez for appellant.
City Fiscal Filemon Consolacion and Jose C. Divinagracia for appellees.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
On August 21, 1953, petitioner Juan B. Mendez was appointed by the Mayor of Iloilo Acting Second Assistant Chief of Police, in the following terms:
Mr. JUAN B. MENDEZ
Iloilo City
Sir:
You are hereby appointed ACTING SECOND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, (CHIEF' SECRET SERVICE DIVISION) in the Police Force, City of Iloilo, with compensation at the rate of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000) per annum, the appointment to take effect August 21, 1953. (Vice Capt. Santiago L. Imperial, who was called to active duty in the Armed Forces, of the Philippines, per Special Order No. 175 of the GHQ, AFP, dated July 30, l953.)
|
Very respectfully,
(Sgd.) DOMINADOR J. JOVER
Mayor |
APPROVED under E. O. No. 264, dated April 1, 1940,
By authority of the President:
(Sgd.) Jose P. DE LEON
Assistant Executive Secretary
NOTED as temporary pending
receipt of the required medical
certificates:
(Sgd.) Illegible
Deputy Commissioner of Civil
Service
(Exhibit A, Rec. p. 29)
After petitioner had served for more than two years, respondent Mayor, Rodolfo Ganzon, wrote him the following letter:
Mr. JUAN B. MENDEZ
Thru the Chief of Police
City of Iloilo
Dear Mr. Mendez:
I regret to in form you of your removal by this Office as Acting Second Assistant Chief of Police of Iloilo City, effective today.
You are mere high school graduate and your eligibility is only that of a Patrolman which do not qualify you for the position of Second Assistant Chief of Police, even in an acting.
This, together with the fact that you are not a man of my confidence makes me feel that I can not very well entrust you with such an important and delicate position as Second Assistant Chief Police of a first class city like the City of Iloilo, which position of Second Assistant Chief of Police is at the same time that of the Chief of the Secret Service Division.
I am putting in your place a first grade civil with eligible who has been a full pledge practising attorney in the city for many years, one who, I would say, has a wide knowledge, principally of the Criminal Laws of the land, both substantive and procedural.
Incidentally, this action is in line with the set policy of President Magsaysay as well as that of this administration of place government employees in their proper places where they can render the most useful and efficient service to the public.
Thus, I wish to inform you that this Office will have no objection to appointing you to other position which will be commensurate with your qualification and attainment.
|
Very respectfully,
(Sgd.) R. GANZON
Mayor
(Exhibit J, Rec. p. 39) |
Mendez then filed, in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, a petition to enjoin his removal, claiming that as it was done without lawful cause, his dismissal was illegal and void. The Mayor and the City defended the action taken on the ground that Mendez' tenure was purely temporary, being in an "acting" capacity. After due trial, the Court of First Instance, presided by Judge Hilarion Jarencio, found the petition without merit and dismissed it. Mendez appealed to the Court.
The judgement must be affirmed. As pointed out in the appealed decision, this Court has already had occasion to consider and rule on the effect of appointments as "acting" officers and held that their essence lies in their temporary and terminability at pleasure by the appointing power. Thus, in Austria vs. Amante, 79 Phil. 780, this Court stated:
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 appointment is merely temporary, good until another permanent appointment 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, we held in Castro vs. Solidum, G. R. L-7750, June 30, 1955, that:
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.
Petitioner, however, urges that his case is taken out of the operation of the foregoing doctrines because his "acting" appointment was approved by both the President and the Director of the Civil Service, and has thereby become a permanent appointment. This contention is untenable. The 3rd Indorsement from the office of the President, dated November 13, 1953, expressly describes the
appointment of Mr. Juan B. as acting second assistants chief of police. (Chief, Secret Service Division) in the Police Force, City of Iloilo, at P4,000 per annum effective August 21, 1963, duly approved.
(Exhibit D; emphasis supplied)
thus squarely contradicting appellant's claim.
But there is a more fundamental reason against petitioner appellant's claim. For the President or the Director of (Civil Service to convert the Iloilo Mayor's "acting" appointment into a permanent one would not only violate the Character of the City of Iloilo (C. A. No. 158, sections 10 and 25) vesting exclusively this appointment in the City Mayor; but what is worse, it would infringe the constitutional provision [Article VII, section 10 (1) ] limiting the power of the Chief Executive over local governments to general supervision as may be provided by law." To change the character of a municipal appointment beyond doubt transcends "general supervision."
Appellant further invokes the provision of Republic Act 557, the constitutional protection of public service tenure, and our decisions in Abella vs. Rodriguez,1 G. R. L-6867, June 29, 1954 (50 Off. Gaz., No-7, p. 3039); Mission vs. Del Rosario,2 G. R. L-6754, February 26, 1954 (50 Off. Gaz., No. 4, p. 1571); Palamine vs. Zagado,3 G. R. L-6901, March 5, 1954 (50 Off. Gaz., No. 4, p. 1566); and Quintos vs. Lacson,4 G. R. L-8062, July 18, 1955 (51 Off Gaz., No. 7, p. 34 29). None of these rules applies to positions held in an "acting" character. In the positions held by the parties summarily removed were permanent, or else there was no proof that the appointment was temporary in character; hence, the summary removals were illegal and void. In the case of Petitioner Mendez, the acting (i.e., temporary) character of his appointment is beyond controversy; it was expressly so made, and he accepted it on that understanding. He can not, therefore, evade the legal consequences thereof.
The decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against the petitioner appellant. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 95 Phil., 289.
2 94 Phil., 483.
3 94 Phil., 494.
4 97 Phil., 290.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
