Atay v. Ty Deling
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Beofnato Atay and Eusebio Yamuta were appointed as janitor-guard and private provincial guard, respectively, in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer and Provincial Warden of Misamis Occidental. Atay's appointment was effective May 16, 1956, and Yamuta's promotional appointment was effective July 1, 1957. Both petitioners were subsequently directed to cease their services, Atay on September 18, 1957, effective September 16, 1957, and Yamuta on July 15, 1957, effective July 16, 1957, though he continued reporting until September 16, 1957. Petitioners alleged their removal was without cause, prior hearing, or investigation, contrary to constitutional and civil service rules. They claimed faithful and continuous service, no pending administrative or criminal cases, and sought reinstatement with back salaries, attorney's fees, and exemplary damages. 2. Procedural History: Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition stated no cause of action because it failed to allege that petitioners were civil service eligibles. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing Supreme Court decisions. A motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the appeal. 3. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for a declaration of illegality of their removal, reinstatement with back salaries, approval and payment of salaries by the Provincial Treasurer and Auditor, and payment of attorney's fees and exemplary damages by the Provincial Governor.
Issue(s)
Whether the removal of petitioners, who were temporary employees without civil service eligibility, was lawful. Whether the petition stated a sufficient cause of action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the removal of the petitioners was lawful. The Court ruled that since the petitioners were temporary employees without civil service eligibility, they could be removed at will by the appointing power in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of the removal of petitioners: The Court held that the removal of petitioners Beofnato Atay and Eusebio Yamuta was lawful. The appointments and removals occurred before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 2260, thus the Revised Administrative Code governed. Petitioners admitted they were not civil service eligibles and their appointments were temporary. The positions they held belong to the classified civil service. Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code states that temporary appointments without examination and certification by the Commissioner of Civil Service shall not be made except when public interest requires and upon prior authorization, and shall continue only for a period not exceeding three months, or until replaced by an eligible. The Court reiterated its previous rulings that temporary employees, due to the nature of their appointment, can be removed and replaced after the expiration of their appointment or after three months of service, in accordance with Section 682. The fact that they held the positions for more than three months, or that their appointments were authorized to continue until replaced by an eligible, does not confer civil service eligibility or protection against removal without cause. Therefore, the respondent Governor could lawfully remove them and replace them with others. On whether the petition stated a sufficient cause of action: The Court found that even admitting the truth of the allegations in the petition, the petitioners would not be entitled to the reliefs prayed for because their removal was in accordance with law. The motion to dismiss was therefore properly granted. The Court cited several previous decisions, including Orais, et al. vs. Ribo, et al., Paña vs. City Mayor, Jimenez vs. Francisco, Mendez vs. Ganzon, and Palagod, et al. vs. Torres, et al., which established the principle that temporary employees without civil service eligibility can be removed at will.
Main Doctrine
Temporary employees in the classified civil service, not being civil service eligibles, may be removed at will by the appointing power, even without cause and prior hearing, in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, provided such removal is within the contemplation of the law governing temporary appointments.