Maribao v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the legality of the appointment of Filemon Maribao as Chief of Police of Ronda, Cebu. Maribao claimed he was illegally removed from his position by the respondent Mayor Lucio Ortiz and sought to compel the approval and payment of his salary, along with damages. The respondents asserted that Maribao's appointment was invalid because it was made by Councilor Toribio Chiong, who allegedly lacked the authority to appoint a Chief of Police, and that Maribao's services were terminated by executive order. Procedural History: The petitioner, Filemon Maribao, filed an action to compel the Mayor of Ronda, Cebu, and other provincial officials to approve and pay his salary as Chief of Police, and to recover damages. The case was heard jointly with another civil case and submitted upon a stipulation of facts. The Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed Maribao's petition. This dismissal led to the present appeal by the petitioner. The Petition: The petitioner, Filemon Maribao, is appealing the dismissal of his case by the Court of First Instance. He argues that his appointment as Chief of Police, made by Councilor Toribio Chiong while acting as Municipal Mayor, was valid. The core of the appeal revolves around the authority of Councilor Chiong to make such an appointment and the subsequent termination of Maribao's services by Mayor Lucio Ortiz. The petitioner seeks reversal of the lower court's decision and the enforcement of his claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of Filemon Maribao as Chief of Police by Councilor Toribio Chiong, who was acting as Municipal Mayor, was legal. Whether the termination of Filemon Maribao's services by Mayor Lucio Ortiz was justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court dismissing the petition. The appointment of Filemon Maribao as Chief of Police was declared illegal, and consequently, his termination was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the appointment of Filemon Maribao as Chief of Police was illegal. Councilor Toribio Chiong, who made the appointment, was designated as acting mayor by a previous mayor. However, this designation was found to be illegal because it did not follow the procedure outlined in Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates that the vice-mayor or, in their absence, the councilor who received the highest number of votes in the last general election should act as mayor. Chiong was the fifth councilor in terms of votes received in the 1951 elections. As an illegally appointed acting mayor, Chiong lacked the authority to appoint Maribao as Chief of Police. Furthermore, the appointment was not approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service or the Executive Secretary, as required by Executive Order No. 175, and was subsequently withdrawn by the respondent mayor before such approvals could be obtained. The appointment of Honorato R. Villafańe, who was a civil service eligible, as chief of police was subsequently approved. On Issue 2: Consequently, the termination of Filemon Maribao's services by Mayor Lucio Ortiz was justified. Since Maribao's appointment was illegal from the outset due to the lack of authority of the appointing official and the absence of required approvals, his continued service was without legal basis. Mayor Ortiz, upon assuming office, correctly identified the illegality of the appointment and took appropriate action to terminate Maribao's services and appoint a qualified individual.
Main Doctrine
An appointment made by an official who lacks the legal authority to make such an appointment is void. Specifically, if an acting mayor is designated contrary to the provisions of Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code, any appointment made by such acting mayor is illegal. Moreover, appointments requiring approval from higher authorities, such as the Commissioner of Civil Service or the Office of the President, are not valid until such approval is obtained, and can be withdrawn prior to such approval.