Arao v. Luspo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Arao, a civil service eligible holding a permanent appointment as municipal clerk since January 4, 1952, was removed from his position by Resolutions Nos. 62 and 63 of the municipal council of Mambajao, Camiguin, effective August 3, 1960. The council cited reasons of economy for abolishing the position. Arao contested this action, alleging it violated his constitutional right to security of tenure. Procedural History: Following the council's resolutions, Arao moved for reconsideration, which was considered dropped due to his failure to appear at a hearing. He also filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commissioner. Without awaiting the Commissioner's ruling, Arao initiated a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental on June 21, 1961, seeking reinstatement and back pay. Subsequently, the Civil Service Commissioner ruled that the municipal council had the power to abolish the position for bona fide economic reasons, a decision later affirmed by the Secretary of Finance. The Court of First Instance dismissed Arao's mandamus petition on September 8, 1964, finding the abolition was done in good faith for economic reasons. The Petition: Arao appealed the Court of First Instance's decision directly to the Supreme Court, raising questions of law. His primary contention was that Resolution No. 62, which abolished his position, failed to meet the required majority vote under Section 2224 of the Revised Administrative Code. He also argued that the abolition was not genuinely for economy but a pretext to remove him from office, citing salary increases in other items and a budget reserve that could have covered his salary. The petition seeks to overturn the dismissal of his mandamus action and secure his reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolution No. 62, abolishing the position of municipal clerk, was validly passed. Whether the abolition of the municipal clerk position was a removal from office without cause, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Whether the reasons of economy cited for the abolition were bona fide or a pretext for removal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the abolition of the position was valid and done in good faith for reasons of economy, and thus did not violate the petitioner's security of tenure.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Resolution No. 62: The Court noted that while Resolution No. 62 might have had an issue with the voting majority, this became academic due to Resolution No. 63, passed on the same day. Resolution No. 63, which approved the municipal budget, explicitly stated the position of messenger-clerk (herein involved) as "abolished" instead of being appropriated for with salary. This budget resolution was unanimously approved by all members present, signifying the clear will of the council to abolish the position. The Court reiterated the principle that suppression of items in a municipal budget resolution or ordinance amounts to the abolition of the positions thus eliminated, citing Alipio v. Rodriguez. On whether the abolition constituted removal without cause: The Court emphasized that a municipal council has the power to create and abolish positions within its jurisdiction, provided this power is not used as a subterfuge to remove a civil service employee without cause. Abolition of a position in good faith for economic reasons is not considered a removal from office. Therefore, the constitutional provision guaranteeing security of tenure, which mandates removal only for cause, does not apply to such a situation. The petitioner failed to prove that personal or political reasons, rather than economy, motivated the abolition. On the bona fide nature of the reasons of economy: The trial court found that the petitioner's office was abolished because its functions were superfluous, light, and simple, and could be absorbed by other existing offices, which was indeed done by the municipal secretary. No new position was created, and no one was appointed to replace the petitioner. While the budget included salary increases, these were in accordance with Republic Act 2368 standardizing municipal official salaries. The budget reserve was also deemed reasonably necessary for statutory obligations and contingency. These findings of fact, supporting the bona fide reasons of economy, were left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of a position in good faith for reasons of economy, even if it results in the separation of a civil service employee with a permanent appointment, does not violate the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, as it is not a removal from office without cause.