Tapales v. President
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ramon Tapales was appointed Acting Director of the Conservatory of Music of Silliman University on December 5, 1945, and subsequently appointed Acting Director of the Conservatory of Music of the University of the Philippines (UP) on the same date. He was later appointed permanent and regular Director of the UP Conservatory of Music on August 14, 1947. His salary as a professor of violin and chamber music was increased over the years. Procedural History: On October 2, 1959, the Board of Regents of UP approved a resolution stating that the term of office for deans and directors shall be five years, and those who had served five years or more prior to the resolution's approval would continue until May 31, 1960, unless reappointed. On April 18, 1960, the UP President issued a memorandum informing deans and directors whose terms would expire on May 31, 1960, that their terms would automatically terminate unless notified of reappointment by May 1, 1960, but they would remain members of the faculty. Tapales, not having been recommended for reappointment, filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, seeking to declare the October 2, 1959 resolution unconstitutional and to prohibit its enforcement. The CFI ruled in favor of Tapales, declaring the resolution null and void and making the preliminary injunction permanent. The Petition: Respondents appealed the CFI's decision directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors concerning the Board of Regents' power to fix the term of office for deans and directors and the retroactive application of the resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines has the power under its Charter to fix the terms of office of deans and directors to five years. Whether the resolution of the Board of Regents can be given retroactive effect to limit the terms of office of deans and directors appointed in a permanent capacity before the resolution's passage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, permanently restraining the appellants (President and Board of Regents of UP) from enforcing the resolution of October 2, 1959, against Ramon Tapales and others similarly situated. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the first issue, deeming the second issue decisive.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of retroactive application of the resolution: The Court held that the resolution of the Board of Regents of October 2, 1959, limiting the term of office of deans and directors to five years, could not be given retroactive effect to affect Director Ramon Tapales, who had been appointed in a permanent capacity prior to the resolution's passage. A dean or director falls under the non-competitive or unclassified civil service and is protected by the constitutional and statutory guaranty of security of tenure against removal or suspension except for cause and after due process. Applying the resolution to Tapales would result in his removal without cause, as it would shorten his term of office without any reason relating to his character or fitness for the position. Such an action amounts to a plain and simple removal without cause and without hearing or investigation, which is prohibited by law. The Court emphasized that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law, citing Lacson v. Romero, et al.. The constitutional and statutory guaranty of security of tenure extends to both classified and unclassified civil service. Therefore, to apply the resolution retroactively to a permanent appointee would violate this fundamental right. On the issue of exhausting administrative remedies: The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the contention that Tapales failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court stated that an administrative review is not a condition precedent to judicial relief when a statute or ordinance is claimed to be unconstitutional and void, or when the question in dispute is purely a legal one and nothing administrative remains to be done. In this case, Tapales impugned the constitutionality and validity of the Resolution, and his objection was a purely legal one, thus justifying direct resort to the courts.
Main Doctrine
The resolution of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines limiting the term of office of deans and directors to five years cannot be given retroactive effect to affect those appointed in a permanent capacity prior to the resolution's passage, as such application would constitute removal without cause, violating their security of tenure protected by the Constitution and Civil Service Law.