Berva v. City Mayor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Tomas B. Berva was appointed detective in the Naga Police and Fire Department on April 14, 1953, with a compensation of P1,140 per annum, effective April 16, 1953. Prior to this, he was a clerk-typist. Appellant lacked civil service eligibility, making his appointments temporary in character. Procedural History: On January 31, 1954, appellant was relieved from service by City Mayor Antonio P. Sibulo, in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. Appellant received payment for his accrued vacation and sick leave for 54 days. The Petition: On August 18, 1954, appellant filed an action against the City Mayor and City Treasurer of Naga City, seeking reinstatement as detective effective February 1, 1954, and payment of back salaries. Respondents argued that appellant was a temporary employee due to lack of civil service eligibility and was legally separated from service, thus having no right to reinstatement or back salary. The lower court upheld the respondents' contention.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant, lacking civil service eligibility, was a temporary employee. Whether the appellant, as a temporary employee, was entitled to reinstatement and back salary. Whether the phrase "per annum" in the appointment makes it permanent. Whether Republic Act No. 557 applies to temporary employees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the dismissal of the petition for reinstatement and back salary.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the appellant was a temporary employee: The Court held that it is undisputed that the appellant is not a civil service eligible and his appointment was never approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service. There was also no proof that his appointment was of a permanent nature. Consequently, his appointment must be considered temporary, as only civil service eligibles are entitled to permanent appointments. On whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and back salary: Since the appellant was a temporary employee, he was not entitled to the security of tenure provided by Republic Act No. 557. The Court cited Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows for the replacement of persons appointed under it at any time after three months from their appointment. Therefore, his separation from service was legal, and he had no right to reinstatement or back salary. On whether the phrase "per annum" makes the appointment permanent: The Court clarified that the phrase "per annum" appearing in the appointment does not make the same permanent. It is merely for budgetary purposes and does not confer permanent status on the appointee. On whether Republic Act No. 557 applies to temporary employees: The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings in Antonio Uy vs. Jose Rodriguez and Olegario vs. Lacson. It explained that the doctrine laid down in those cases refers to detectives whose appointments were permanent in character. In the case at bar, the appellant's lack of civil service eligibility precluded his appointment from being permanent. The Court reiterated its holding in Orais, et al. vs. Ribo, et al., that persons appointed under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code could be replaced at any time after three months from their appointment.
Main Doctrine
A temporary appointment, even if the salary is stated on a yearly basis, does not grant the appointee security of tenure under Republic Act No. 557, and thus, they may be replaced at any time without cause or investigation.