Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23778 December 24, 1965
MANUEL M. AGUILA, petitioner,
vs.
REMIGIO CASTRO and MAYOR JOSE T. FORTUS, respondents.
Joel P. Tiangco for petitioner.
Federico A. Blay for respondents.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an original action for quo warranto, to test the title of respondent Remigio Castro to the office of the chief of police of Ibaan, Batangas, which petitioner Manuel Aguila claims, and, also, for mandamus, against Jose T. Fortus, as Mayor of said municipality, to compel him to order the payment of Aguila as such chief of police, of back salaries from July 1, 1964 up to the present, as well as for damages against both respondents.
It appears that petitioner has a third grade civil service eligibility, which is not sufficient for a permanent appointment as chief of police; that on April 16, 1954, he was appointed chief of police of Ibaan, Batangas; and that on January 1, 1960 he was extended a probational appointment to the same office — presumably with an increase in pay — which appointment was authorized by the Commissioner of Civil Service as temporary, "to continue until replaced by a civil service eligible but not beyond three (3) months" from said date "pursuant to Sec. 24(d) of Republic Act No. 2260." Similar appointments were extended in his favor and approved in the same manner by the Commissioner of Civil Service, on March 31, June 22 and July 1, 1960. On November 29, 1962 another appointment, to the same office in his favor, with promotion in pay, was attested by the provincial treasurer, "in pursuance of sec. 24 (d) of said Republic Act," as deputy of the Commissioner of Civil Service. A last promotional appointment to the same office, extended in petitioner's favor on August 1, 1963, was authorized by the provincial treasurer "as temporary to continue until replaced by an appropriate civil service eligible anytime in pursuance of section 24 (d) of the same Act of Congress."
Petitioner was on sick leave from January to June 30, 1964. On June 25, 1964, he received a letter of respondent Jose T. Fortus, stating that, effective at the close of business hours of June 30, 1964, his (petitioner's) services were being terminated, because his third grade civil service eligibility was not appropriate for a regular permanent appointment as chief of police. In fact, respondent Castro — who had been municipal treasurer of Ibaan for seventeen years - had on June 16, 1964, been extended an appointment to said office, effective on July 1, 1964, on which date Castro assumed the duties thereof. Hence, on November 7, 1964, petitioner instituted the present action against Castro and mayor Fortus, upon the ground that Castro's aforementioned appointment is null and void, because, up to the present, the position of chief of police of Ibaan is not vacant.
This contention is based upon the theory that, although up to November 29, 1962, Aguila held said office in a temporary capacity, the appointment extended in his favor on the date last mentioned was permanent in nature and had been approved by the provincial treasurer, as representative of the Commissioner of Civil Service. It should he noted, however, that attestations by provincial treasurers, acting on behalf of the Commissioner of Civil Service, pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2260, are subject to revision by said Commissioner within 180 days from receipt of said appointments by him, to whom the appointments should be forwarded by the provincial treasurers, within ten (10) days from the attestation made by the latter, for review by the former, and that said appointment in favor of the petitioner had not been so forwarded to the Commissioner of Civil Service. As a consequence, petitioner has not as yet acquired the status of permanent chief of police of Ibaan, which he now claims by reason of said appointment of November 29, 1962, inasmuch as the same is still subject to review by the Commissioner of Civil Service, and the latter should not and cannot approve it as a permanent appointment, owing to petitioner's lack of appropriate civil service eligibility.
In fact, on August 1, 1963, a promotional appointment in favor of Aguila, to take effect on July 1, 1963, was authorized by the provincial treasurer "as temporary until replaced by an appropriate civil service eligible, any time in pursuance of Sec. 24 (d) of Republic Act No. 2260." Since this was the appointment under which he held the office when his services were terminated by the mayor in June, 1964, it follows that petitioner was then merely a temporary chief of police and that, as such, he could be removed from office at any time (Tolentino vs. Torres, 51 Off. Gaz. 753; Pineda vs. Velez, L-8559, October 31, 1956; Cayabyab vs. Cayabyab, L-10664, May 29, 1957; University of the Philippines vs. CIR, L-5416, April 28, 1960; Quitiquit vs. Villacorta, L-15048, April 29, 1960; Mortero vs. Castellanes, L-12694, June 30, 1960; Taboada vs. Municipality of Badian, L-14604, May 31, 1961; Mendenilla vs. Onandia, L-17803, June 30, 1962).
It is argued that, like petitioner herein, respondent Castro had not passed the civil service examinations for chief of police, and that, accordingly, there is no reason why said respondent should have preference over petitioner. It should be noted, however, that, whereas Aguila is merely a third grade civil service eligible, Castro is a second grade civil service eligible, he having passed the civil service examinations held therefor. Besides, Castro is a World War veteran, he having been inducted on March 1, 1943, with the rank of first lieutenant on March 1, 1943, into the military service of the FAIT, from which he was honorably discharged on September 10, 1945. Again, Castro's appointment by the mayor of Ibaan was, on July 11, 1964, duly confirmed and approved by the municipal council of Ibaan, as provided in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1551, whereas no such action appears to have been taken in connection with Aguila's appointment of November 29, 1962, which, accordingly, did not acquire full force and effect.
WHEREFORE, the petition herein must be, as it is hereby dismissed and the writ prayed for denied, with costs against Petitioner Manuel M. Aguila. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
