Santos v. Mallare
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Eduardo de los Santos was appointed City Engineer of Baguio on July 16, 1946. On June 1, 1950, respondent Gil R. Mallare was extended an ad interim appointment to the same position. Petitioner refused to vacate the office, asserting his right to security of tenure under the Constitution. The other respondents, the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Auditor, recognized Mallare's appointment and paid him the corresponding salary, prompting petitioner to initiate legal action. 2. Procedural History: This case originated as an original action for quo warranto filed by petitioner Eduardo de los Santos before the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of Gil R. Mallare's appointment as City Engineer of Baguio. The core of the dispute revolves around the petitioner's claim that his removal from the office, implied by Mallare's appointment, was unlawful as it was done without cause. 3. The Petition: The petitioner invokes Article XII of the Constitution, specifically section 4, which states that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law. He argues that the City Engineer position, though potentially falling under the unclassified service, is protected by this constitutional provision. The petitioner contends that Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code, which purportedly allows the removal of the City Engineer at pleasure, is incompatible with and has been superseded by the Constitution. He seeks to remain in his position until removed for legal cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the provision of Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizing the removal of the City Engineer of Baguio 'at pleasure' is still in force. Whether the Constitutional protection against removal except 'for cause' applies to officers in the unclassified service. Whether the position of City Engineer of Baguio is policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical.
Ruling
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to remain in office as City Engineer of Baguio until he resigns or is removed for cause, and that respondent Mallare's appointment is ineffective insofar as it adversely affects the petitioner's emoluments, rights, and privileges. The provision of Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code allowing removal at pleasure was deemed repealed by the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), which states the President 'may remove at pleasure any of the said appointive officers,' is inconsistent with the Constitutional mandate for removal only 'for cause.' Under Article XVI, Section 2 of the Constitution, only laws not inconsistent with the organic law remain operative. The Court clarified that 'removal at pleasure' and 'removal for cause' are mutually repugnant and absolutely irreconcilable. Therefore, the 'at pleasure' clause was repealed by the Constitution and was already non-existent when the petitioner was appointed. This means the President no longer possessed the discretionary power to oust the City Engineer without legal grounds. On Issue 2: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine in Lacson v. Romero (47 Off. Gaz., 1778), holding that the Civil Service (CS) encompasses both classified and unclassified services. Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution defines the CS as embracing 'all branches and subdivisions of the Government.' The Court noted that Commonwealth Act No. 177, enacted to implement the Constitution, confirmed this broad scope. For cause protection is not limited to those who pass competitive examinations; it covers all government personnel unless they fall under the three specific constitutional exceptions. Restricting this protection to only the classified service would cripple the merit system and invite political patronage. On Issue 3: The position of City Engineer of Baguio does not fall under the exceptions for policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical positions. A 'primarily confidential' post requires close intimacy that ensures freedom from misgivings of betrayal of personal trust; the City Engineer's duties do not involve such a relationship. It is not 'policy-determining' because the City Engineer executes policy formulated by others rather than making it. While 'technical,' it is not 'highly technical' because the skills required are not of a supreme or superior degree beyond those of other technical personnel in the classified service. Consequently, the incumbent enjoys full security of tenure.
Main Doctrine
The provision of Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows the removal of the City Engineer of Baguio at pleasure, is incompatible with and has been repealed by Section 4 of Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits removal except for cause. The City Engineer position is not primarily confidential, policy-determining, or highly technical, thus falling within the protection of the Civil Service provisions of the Constitution.