Favis v. Rupisan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 1, 1962, petitioner Godofredo N. Favis was appointed Assistant General Manager of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and discharged the functions of the office. On May 6, 1964, the PVTA Board of Directors declared the position vacant, alleging Favis was remiss in his duties and had committed acts constituting a breach of trust, and appointed Canuto Fariñas, Jr. to the position. Procedural History: Petitioner Favis instituted a quo warranto proceeding, claiming his removal violated Section 32 of the Revised Civil Service Law (Rep. Act 2260) and that Fariñas' appointment constituted usurpation. Respondents contended that the Assistant General Manager position is highly confidential and thus removable at pleasure, or that Favis' appointment was not approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, making him a de facto officer removable without cause. The Petition: The core issue presented was whether petitioner's appointment to the position of Assistant General Manager entitled him to security of tenure.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner's appointment to the position of Assistant General Manager, which was never approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, entitled him to the right to security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Civil Service Law.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court ruled that petitioner, not having secured the approval of his appointment by the Commissioner of Civil Service, was a de facto officer and could be removed without cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that for an appointee to a classified position to be entitled to legal protection against removal, the appointment must receive the proper approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service. Under Section 16(h) of Republic Act No. 2260, the Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction over the approval of all appointments in the competitive service. The Court emphasized that an appointment is not final or complete until the Commissioner certifies that it may be made, as previously held in Sujot v. Vertido. The PVTA's internal practice of treating corporate officials' appointments as effective upon assumption of office, without formal Commissioner approval, cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Civil Service Law. Since Favis' appointment was never approved by the Commissioner, he never acquired a de jure status and remained a de facto officer for the duration of his service. Consequently, despite his two-year occupancy, he did not possess security of tenure and could be removed at the discretion of the appointing power without a showing of just cause.
Main Doctrine
An appointee to a position in the classified civil service, to be entitled to the protection of the law against unjust removal, must have an appointment that has been approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service. Without such approval, the appointee is considered a de facto officer and may be removed without cause.