Gendrala v. Cordova
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rogerio Gendrala was appointed as a policeman of Bacolod City on October 16, 1955. He was not a civil service eligible and his appointment was temporary. His position was newly created and its salary was included in the city budget for fiscal year 1955-1956. Prior to his dismissal, he had no prior accusations of crime, anomaly, irregularity, or inefficiency. Procedural History: Gendrala was removed from his position without the benefit of an investigation. He requested the mayor to reconsider his dismissal but did not appeal to higher authorities. The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros dismissed his action for mandamus, reinstatement, backpay, and damages. The Petition: Gendrala appealed the dismissal of his action to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of a temporary policeman without civil service eligibility, without prior investigation, is lawful. Whether a temporary employee without civil service eligibility is protected by the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause.
Ruling
The appeal is without merit. The decision of the lower court dismissing the action for reinstatement and damages is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of dismissal of a temporary policeman without civil service eligibility, without prior investigation: The Court held that appellant, not being a civil service eligible and his appointment being merely temporary, could legally be dismissed at any time. His removal without previous investigation does not entitle him to the protection accorded to municipal policemen by Republic Act No. 557 because he is a non-eligible. The Court cited previous rulings in Cuadra vs. Cordova and Galon vs. Cordova to support this position. The fact that he was removed without investigation is inconsequential given his temporary and non-eligible status. On whether a temporary employee without civil service eligibility is protected by the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause: The Court ruled that as a temporary employee with no civil service eligibility, appellant does not come under the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause. This protection is reserved for those with permanent status or civil service eligibility. The Court reiterated the principle that temporary appointments are terminable at will, and the appointing authority has the discretion to remove such appointees without necessarily showing cause, as long as it is not done for political or other illegal reasons. The dismissal was deemed lawful, thus the action for reinstatement and damages was properly dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A temporary employee without civil service eligibility can be legally dismissed at any time without prior investigation and does not fall under the constitutional guarantee against removal without cause.