Braganza v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 2, 1964, provisional appointments as "Election Registrar in the Commission on Elections" were extended to both Pacifico M. Braganza (petitioner) and Benjamin Abella (respondent). Both were subsequently directed via telegrams dated November 9, 1964, to report and assume duties as election registrars for Mabini, Pangasinan. Petitioner qualified on November 11, 1964, and respondent Abella on November 19, 1964. On August 20, 1965, petitioner was designated officer-in-charge of the election registrar's office at Mabini, Pangasinan. Procedural History: On September 7, 1966, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) appointed respondent Abella as permanent "Election Registrar for Mabini, Pangasinan." This appointment was certified by the Civil Service Commission, and Abella qualified and commenced his duties on November 8, 1966. Petitioner moved the COMELEC to reconsider Abella's appointment and to retain him as permanent election registrar, but this motion was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, seeking to bar Abella from the position of permanent election registrar of Mabini, Pangasinan, and to compel the COMELEC to annul Abella's appointment and extend one in favor of petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Pacifico M. Braganza acquired a vested right to the office of permanent election registrar of Mabini, Pangasinan. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Benjamin Abella as permanent election registrar.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The petitioner has not made out a case calling for the exercise by the Supreme Court of its powers of intervention.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner acquired a vested right to the office of permanent election registrar of Mabini, Pangasinan: The Court held that petitioner's claim to the office was untenable. Petitioner's argument that his provisional appointment was irregular and should be considered permanent collapsed because he could not simultaneously assail the validity of his appointment as illegal and yet consider it as a valid one of another category. If the appointment was void, it conferred no rights. Furthermore, even assuming the validity of his provisional appointment, the Court reiterated the doctrine that only officers appointed to particular stations, not merely assigned or detailed, are entitled to security of tenure. Since both petitioner's and respondent Abella's appointments did not specify Mabini, Pangasinan, their subsequent detail to that municipality did not entitle either to assert a right to be retained as permanent election registrar thereof. The Court cited Ibañez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. L-26558, April 27, 1967, and other cases to support this principle. On whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Benjamin Abella as permanent election registrar: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The power to appoint is discretionary, and the appointing power has the right of choice. The determination of who should be retained as permanent election registrar in Mabini, Pangasinan, was a matter for the COMELEC to decide, and its determination must be respected. The petitioner's reliance on the COMELEC's "Guidelines In The Assignment Of Election Registrars" was misplaced, as these guidelines were intended for the assignment of registrars without new appointments, not to control the COMELEC's discretion in making permanent appointments.
Main Doctrine
A provisional appointment, even if subsequently detailed to a specific station, does not confer security of tenure to the appointee, precluding a claim to a permanent position in that station against a duly appointed permanent registrar.