Hortillosa v. Ganzon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felipe Hortillosa served as a patrolman in the Iloilo City police department since 1936, passing the civil service examination for patrolman in 1937. He was progressively promoted through the ranks, eventually reaching the position of captain on June 23, 1955. This last promotion was authorized as temporary under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. In April 1956, the Mayor of Iloilo City issued an executive order terminating Hortillosa's service as captain and declaring the position vacant. 2. Procedural History: Following the termination of his service, Hortillosa's attorney sent letters to the Mayor requesting reinstatement and asserting protection under Republic Act No. 557. When these letters went unanswered, Hortillosa filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, seeking to have the Mayor's executive order declared illegal and to be reinstated. The respondent Mayor argued that Hortillosa's appointment as captain was temporary and thus replaceable by an eligible candidate. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: Hortillosa appeals the dismissal of his mandamus petition, arguing that his appointment as captain should have been permanent given his civil service eligibility as a first-class patrolman. He contends that he is protected by Republic Act No. 557 and that his temporary appointment status was improperly applied. The core of his argument is that he should not have been removed from his position without due process and that the Mayor's executive order was unlawful. He seeks reinstatement to his position as captain in the Iloilo City police department.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner, appointed as captain in the police department in a temporary capacity, is entitled to the protection afforded by Republic Act No. 557. Whether the petitioner's termination from service through Executive Order No. 15 was illegal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the petition for mandamus. The petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of protection under Republic Act No. 557: The Court held that the petitioner, having accepted the position of captain in a temporary capacity under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, was not entitled to the protection afforded by Republic Act No. 557. Republic Act No. 557 protects members of the corps of provincial guards, city police, and municipal police. However, temporary appointments under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code are only for a period not exceeding three months and a temporary appointee may be replaced by an eligible at any time. The petitioner's appointment was explicitly authorized as temporary until replaced by an appropriate eligible. Therefore, he could not claim the security of tenure guaranteed to permanent appointees under the law. The Court emphasized that not having passed the civil service examination for captain in the police force of chartered cities, the appellant could not be extended a permanent appointment as captain. His acceptance of the position in a temporary capacity removed him from the protective ambit of Republic Act No. 557. On the issue of the legality of the termination: The Court found that the termination was legal because the petitioner's appointment was temporary. The Civil Service Law mandates that appointments in the classified service shall be made only according to merit and competitive examination, and no person shall be employed until they have passed the required examination. While the petitioner was a first-class patrolman eligible, this eligibility did not automatically qualify him for a permanent appointment as captain, a position that requires a higher grade of examination. The promotional appointment to captain was authorized as temporary, to continue until replaced by an appropriate eligible. Consequently, the Mayor, as the appointing power, had the authority to terminate the temporary appointment at any time, especially when the position could be filled by a qualified eligible. The Court also noted that the petitioner could not claim vested rights in positions held under temporary or acting capacity, as evidenced by his information sheet showing previous temporary or acting appointments.
Main Doctrine
A temporary appointee, whose appointment is authorized under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code and is subject to replacement by an eligible at any time, is not entitled to the protection afforded by Republic Act No. 557 to members of the police force, and thus may be removed from service without cause.