Castillo v. Pajo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Carmen R. Castillo was appointed correspondence clerk in the Provincial Fiscal's office of Bohol in November 1951. She continued in this role until June 12, 1954, when she ceased working due to Provincial Board Resolutions Nos. 161 and 300, which abolished her position effective June 9, 1954. Castillo protested this action, asserting her civil service eligibility and status, and claiming the Secretary of Finance had disapproved the resolutions. She sought reinstatement, back salaries, damages, and attorney's fees, arguing her removal was unlawful under the constitutional provision protecting civil service employees from removal except for cause. 2. Procedural History: Following the abolition of her position and denial of relief from administrative authorities, Castillo initiated a legal proceeding to compel her reinstatement. The respondents, the Provincial Governor and Board Members of Bohol, defended their actions, arguing that the constitutional inhibition against removal did not apply to the abolition of positions and that the Secretary of Finance's disapproval was merely a suggestion. The trial court, after a hearing and submission of memoranda, dismissed Castillo's action, concluding that the Provincial Board possessed the legal authority to abolish the position. Castillo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, finding the assignments of error to involve purely legal questions, certified the case to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of Appeals, presenting two main issues: whether the Provincial Board validly abolished Castillo's position and whether such abolition lawfully terminated her employment. Castillo contended that the resolutions abolishing her position were ineffective due to disapproval by the Department of Finance. However, the Supreme Court, referencing prior rulings, held that the Secretary of Finance lacked the power to disapprove such resolutions under the prevailing statutes at the time, and any indorsement to the contrary was merely a suggestion. The Court further clarified that while a later law (Republic Act No. 1063) required approval from the Secretary of Finance for abolitions, it was not applicable to resolutions passed before its enactment. The Court affirmed that the power to create a position includes the power to abolish it, and the abolition of a position does not constitute a removal prohibited by the constitution, even for civil service eligibles, unless done in bad faith or for reasons other than the needs of public service, which was not sufficiently proven here.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Board validly abolished the petitioner's position. Whether the abolition of the position, if valid, resulted in the lawful separation of the petitioner from the provincial service.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The abolition of the petitioner's position was valid and effective, and her separation from the service was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the abolition of the petitioner's position: The Court affirmed the principle that the power to establish an office includes the authority to abolish it, unless expressly prohibited by law or the Constitution. The Provincial Board had the express power to fix the number of employees and their salaries, which implicitly carried the power to abolish positions it created. The indorsement from the Secretary of Finance, which suggested the retention of the petitioner's position, was considered a mere suggestion and not a binding disapproval, based on prior rulings that the Secretary of Finance lacked the power to disapprove such abolitions at that time. The Court also noted that Republic Act No. 1063, which granted the Secretary of Finance approval power over abolitions, was enacted after the resolutions in question, thus not applicable retroactively. The claim that the abolition was for personal reasons was dismissed, as the Governor is not the Board, and the Court does not delve into the advisability or necessity of such measures, which are within the province of the executive or legislative branches. On whether the abolition resulted in lawful separation: The Court reiterated that the constitutional protection against removal or suspension except for cause does not apply to the abolition of a position. Unlike removal or suspension, abolition is a valid exercise of governmental power that terminates the incumbent's right to the position and salary. The Court cited previous cases, such as Manalang vs. Quitoria, Rodriguez vs. Montemayor, and Dominguez vs. Pascual, which recognized the authority of legislative bodies or provincial boards to suppress or abolish positions, even if it results in the ouster of civil service eligibles. The abolition of the petitioner's position was deemed valid and effective, meaning she no longer held a position and was lawfully out of the service.
Main Doctrine
The power to create a position in the provincial government includes the inherent power to abolish it, and the abolition of a position results in the lawful separation of the incumbent, even if they are civil service eligibles, provided the abolition is done in good faith and not for personal reasons. The Secretary of Finance's disapproval of such abolition, prior to Republic Act No. 1063, was considered a mere suggestion and not binding.