Sison v. Pajo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the legality of the removal of Bonifacio Lacanlale as Acting Chief of Police of Bamban, Tarlac, by Mayor Enrique Sison. Mayor Sison recalled Lacanlale's appointment, citing inefficiency and incompetence, and appointed Patrolman Pablo L. Santos, Jr. in his stead. Lacanlale, a veteran and non-civil service eligible, questioned the legality of his removal and sought reinstatement. 2. Procedural History: Lacanlale's query regarding his removal was referred to Mayor Sison, who reiterated his reasons for the recall. Lacanlale also appealed to the President, leading to an investigation by the Provincial Board of Tarlac, which declared Lacanlale's separation illegal and recommended his reinstatement. The Executive Secretary subsequently directed Mayor Sison to reinstate Lacanlale, but the Mayor refused, leading to the filing of this injunction action by Mayor Sison and Acting Police Chief Santos, Jr. The lower court initially issued a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition, ordering Lacanlale's reinstatement and back pay. Appellants moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding Santos, Jr.'s civil service eligibility, which was granted but ultimately did not alter the court's decision. A writ of execution was issued and subsequently stayed by supersedeas bonds. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants, Mayor Enrique Sison and Acting Police Chief Pablo L. Santos, Jr., appealed the lower court's decision. They argued that Lacanlale's acting appointment could be terminated at the Mayor's pleasure. The core of their appeal challenged the interpretation and application of Republic Act No. 65, as amended, and Republic Act No. 1363, concerning veteran preference. They contended that Santos, Jr.'s subsequent passing of the civil service examination and reappointment should have validated Lacanlale's removal. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Lacanlale, as a veteran, was entitled to preference and protection under the law, and his removal was illegal. The Court also upheld the order for back salaries, deeming the municipality's non-impleadment a mere formality, and ordered the substitution of the deceased Lacanlale with his heirs, with payment to be made to his judicial administrator.
Issue(s)
Whether the removal of Bonifacio Lacanlale as Acting Chief of Police was legal. Whether the subsequent passing of the civil service examination by Pablo L. Santos, Jr. and his reappointment could validate the illegal removal of Lacanlale. Whether the municipality of Bamban, Tarlac, not being formally impleaded, is liable for the payment of Lacanlale's back salaries.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ordering the reinstatement of Bonifacio Lacanlale as Acting Chief of Police of Bamban, Tarlac, with payment of back salaries, with the modification that payment should be made to the judicial administrator of his estate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of Lacanlale's removal: The Court held that the removal of Bonifacio Lacanlale was illegal. The preference accorded to veterans under Republic Act No. 65, as amended, and Republic Act No. 1363, meant that Lacanlale, despite being a non-civil service eligible appointee in an acting capacity, was entitled to retain his position until the availability of a civil service eligible was certified by the Commissioner of Civil Service. His removal based on alleged inefficiency and incompetence was unfounded, as no administrative case was filed against him, and the Provincial Board's investigation exonerated him. The Court emphasized that the preference given to veterans is not merely for appointment but also for retaining their positions. On the effect of Santos, Jr.'s subsequent eligibility and reappointment: The Court ruled that the subsequent passing of the civil service examination by Pablo L. Santos, Jr. and his reappointment did not validate the illegal removal of Lacanlale. The illegal separation of an employee means that the position is deemed never to have been legally vacated. Therefore, Santos, Jr. could not have validly replaced Lacanlale in 1957 or 1959. The eligibility acquired by Santos, Jr. and his temporary reappointment, even if approved by the Executive Secretary and Commissioner of Civil Service, could not cure the invalidity of Lacanlale's removal or validate Santos' appointment in his stead. The replacement by an eligible must be made by competent authority only after certification by the Commissioner of Civil Service. On the municipality's liability for back salaries: The Court found the contention that the municipality was not impleaded and therefore not liable for back salaries to be without merit. It is settled that an illegal removal of a public official does not render the position vacant, and the right to back salaries is incidental to reinstatement. The Court cited numerous precedents establishing that the municipality's absence as a named respondent does not affect the official's right to back salaries, especially when the relevant officers (Mayor, Governor, Provincial Board) were parties to the case and had defended the municipality's interests. The Court considered the inclusion of the municipality as a mere formality, deeming it effected to serve the ends of justice and equity.
Main Doctrine
The preference accorded to veterans under Republic Act No. 65, as amended, and Republic Act No. 1363, extends not only to appointment but also to the right to retain their positions until the availability of a civil service eligible is certified by the Commissioner of Civil Service. An illegal removal does not create a vacancy, and the right to back salaries is incidental to reinstatement.