Urgelio v. Osmeña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jose V. Encabo and Jorge Villarin, along with Sinforiano V. Urgelio, were employed in the office of the City Mayor of Cebu City. Encabo served as an office helper since May 1948, Villarin as a laborer since April 1954, and Urgelio as a laborer since June 1946. All were performing clerical duties and were permanent employees, evidenced by their membership in the Government Service Insurance System. Their employment was terminated following the passage of Cebu City Ordinance No. 192. Procedural History: The Municipal Board of Cebu City initially created thirty-five new positions in the Mayor's office on January 5, 1956. Subsequently, on February 10, 1956, Ordinance No. 192 was enacted, abolishing several positions, including those held by the petitioners. The Mayor notified them of their termination effective March 15, 1956. After their protests to the Commissioner of the Civil Service and the Executive Secretary yielded no replies, the petitioners initiated a proceeding for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on December 5, 1956. An amended petition on June 27, 1957, included the City of Cebu as a respondent. The Court of First Instance dismissed their petition, leading to the present appeal. The Petition: The appellants argue that the abolition of their positions through Ordinance No. 192 was done in bad faith and in violation of law and the Constitution. While acknowledging the Municipal Board's power to fix the number and salaries of employees not provided for in the City Charter, they contend that this power is subject to the exception that abolition must be in good faith and not a pretext to remove civil service employees. They point to the prior creation of new positions and the subsequent creation of more positions and salary increases as evidence that the abolition was not for economy or efficiency, especially since their duties continued to be performed by others. This Court, referencing a prior similar case (Concepcion, Briones, et al. v. Sergio Osmeña, Jr., et al.), found that the abolition violated the security of civil service tenure.
Issue(s)
Whether the abolition of the petitioners' positions was done in bad faith and in violation of law and the Constitution. Whether the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and back salaries.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is reversed. The abolition of the appellants' positions is declared null and void. The respondent City of Cebu is ordered to reinstate them to their positions or equivalent ones and to pay their separation pay, less any earnings from other employment. The respondents are also ordered to pay attorney's fees and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the abolition of positions: The Supreme Court reiterated that while the Municipal Board of Cebu has the power to fix the number and salaries of employees not provided for in the City Charter, the exercise of this power is subject to the exception that the abolition must be in good faith and not a pretext for removing incumbents in violation of civil service law. The Court found that Ordinance No. 192 was not enacted for genuine reasons of economy and efficiency. This was evidenced by the creation of 35 new positions shortly before the ordinance and the subsequent creation of sixteen additional positions and salary increases after the petitioners' positions were abolished. Furthermore, the same duties performed by the petitioners continued to be performed by other employees, indicating that their services were still needed. The Court noted that this ordinance had been the subject of a previous case where it was found to be a violation of the security of civil service tenure. On the entitlement to reinstatement and back salaries: Since the abolition of the positions was declared null and void for being done in bad faith, the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated to their former positions or to equivalent ones. They are also entitled to payment of their salaries from the date of their separation until their reinstatement, with a deduction for any amounts they may have earned from other employment during the interim. This deduction is to be determined upon proper hearing before the court a quo.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of a public office or position must be done in good faith and not as a means to remove incumbents in violation of civil service law. If the abolition is found to be a subterfuge for removal, it is void.