Cui v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, who were civil service eligibles, were appointed as Chief of Police and patrolmen of the municipality of Ronda, Cebu, in December 1955 by the then-incumbent mayor. Upon the assumption of office by the respondent mayor in January 1956, he notified the petitioners of the termination of their services and appointed new individuals to their positions, also sending a telegram to the President of the Philippines withdrawing the petitioners' appointments. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent mayor to sign their payroll and approve their salaries, and to reinstate them to their former positions. The trial court ordered the respondent mayor to approve the payment of the petitioners' salaries from January 16, 1956, to July 18, 1956, but remained silent on the issue of reinstatement. Both the petitioners and the respondents appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners appealed the trial court's decision, insisting on their reinstatement and accrued salaries until reinstatement. The respondents appealed the decision regarding the payment of salaries from January 16 to July 18, 1956. The Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the appointments under Section 14 of Executive Order No. 175, series of 1938, which governs appointments to municipal police forces and requires presidential approval. The Court noted that while appointees could assume office and receive salaries for services rendered pending approval, the disapproval of petitioner Maribao's appointment on July 18, 1956, and by extension, the other petitioners' appointments, rendered their status incomplete and their removal not discriminatory.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, as civil service eligibles appointed to the municipal police force, are entitled to reinstatement and accrued salaries. Whether the respondent mayor acted within his authority in terminating the services of the petitioners and appointing new personnel.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court. It affirmed the entitlement of the petitioners to salaries for services rendered up to the date of the disapproval of their appointments, but denied their claim for reinstatement. The Court ruled that the petitioners' appointments were not complete without the President's approval, and their recall was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the petitioners' appointments, made by the outgoing mayor, were legal at the time of their issuance. However, these appointments required the approval of the President of the Philippines to be considered complete. Section 14 of Executive Order No. 175, series of 1938, provides that pending presidential approval, appointees may assume office and receive salaries for services actually rendered. Therefore, the petitioners were considered de facto officers and were entitled to salaries for the period they actually rendered service until their appointments were finally acted upon. The Court noted that the office of the President disapproved petitioner Maribao's appointment on July 18, 1950, and considered this date as the final disapproval for the other petitioners as well, thus limiting their salary claims to this period. Reinstatement was not granted as their appointments were not perfected. On Issue 2: The Court found that the respondent mayor could not be charged with discriminatory removal because the petitioners' appointments were incomplete. The recall and withdrawal of their appointments were deemed proper, particularly since the reason cited was lack of residence in the municipality. Since the appointments were not perfected due to the lack of presidential approval, the respondent mayor's action in appointing new personnel was within his authority to fill the positions with duly qualified and approved appointees.
Main Doctrine
Appointments to the municipal police force, including the Chief of Police and patrolmen, are governed by Civil Service Rules and Regulations and require the approval of the President of the Philippines. Until such approval is obtained, appointees may assume office and receive salaries for services actually rendered, effectively functioning as de facto officers.