Cometa v. Andanar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the removal of Maximino Cometa from his position as the appointed municipal mayor of the newly created municipality of Sapao, Province of Surigao. Cometa was appointed to this office by the President of the Philippines on October 1, 1953, and subsequently qualified and assumed his duties. He alleges that on or about February 8, 1954, he was removed from office without legal cause, malfeasance, or proper notification, and that Wenceslao Andanar was designated and appointed as the acting mayor in his stead. 2. Procedural History: Following his alleged removal, Cometa sought an explanation from the Executive Secretary regarding the cause of his ouster, but received no response. The respondent, Andanar, assumed the duties of the municipal mayor. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court via a petition for quo warranto, filed by Cometa to challenge the legality of his removal and Andanar's subsequent appointment and exercise of mayoral functions. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on a petition for quo warranto. The petitioner, Maximino Cometa, seeks to regain his position as municipal mayor of Sapao and to invalidate the appointment of the respondent, Wenceslao Andanar. Cometa argues that his appointment was intended to be until the next regular election, not a temporary designation subject to removal at pleasure. He contends that his removal was unlawful as it was not based on any legal cause and was not conducted through the prescribed legal procedures. The petition challenges the respondent's authority to hold the office which Cometa claims is illegally usurped.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner, as an appointee to the office of municipal mayor of a newly created municipality, could be removed from office without cause. Whether the respondent's designation as acting mayor was valid and legally ousted the petitioner from office.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition for quo warranto. It ruled that the petitioner was illegally removed from office and is entitled to the position. The respondent was found to have unlawfully usurped the office.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the petitioner, having been appointed municipal mayor of the newly created municipality of Sapao by the President, possessed security of tenure until the next regular election. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 180, as amended, provides that in the interim, elective officers of a new political division shall be filled by appointment by the President or by a special election. If filled by appointment, the appointee holds office until the next regular election, not temporarily or in an acting capacity, but permanently until their successor is chosen. Therefore, the petitioner could not be removed except for cause as provided by law and in the manner prescribed therein. The Court noted that there was no evidence presented to show that the petitioner was removed for cause, and his inquiry to the Executive Secretary remained unanswered. On Issue 2: The Court found the respondent's contention that the office of municipal mayor does not have a fixed term and thus rests at the pleasure of the appointing power to be without merit. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 180, as amended, states that elected officials shall hold office for four years and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. While the petitioner was appointed and not elected, the principle of security of tenure until the next regular election applies. The Court also dismissed the respondent's claim that the petitioner was ousted by a resolution of the municipal council, stating that the council has no authority to remove a municipal mayor. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of voluntary surrender, finding no evidence to support it. Consequently, the designation of the respondent as acting mayor was deemed an illegal removal of the petitioner, and the respondent was found to have unlawfully usurped the office.
Main Doctrine
The appointment of an individual to an elective office in a newly created municipality, made by the President in the interim before the next regular election, grants the appointee security of tenure until such election. Removal of such an appointee is only permissible for cause, following due process, and cannot be effected arbitrarily or at the pleasure of the appointing power. The municipal council lacks the authority to remove a municipal mayor from office.