Santos v. Chico
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Delfin Santos, Josefino Legaspi, Ricardo Agapito, and Conrado Aterado were appointed as municipal policemen of Baliuag, Bulacan, on August 1, 1962, by the then municipal mayor, Felix R. Tiongson. These appointments were attested as provisional by the Commissioner of Civil Service. On January 15, 1964, the incumbent municipal mayor, Roberto Chico, issued memoranda terminating the services of these petitioners. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with a preliminary mandatory injunction in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, seeking to prevent their removal from their positions and to compel the Municipal Treasurer to continue paying their emoluments. The lower court dismissed their petition, finding that their appointments were temporary and could be terminated at any time without cause. This decision led to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants are seeking review of the lower court's decision, arguing that although their appointments were initially temporary, the approval by the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered them provisional. They contend that as provisional appointees, they cannot be replaced by other non-civil service eligibles. The appeal challenges the lower court's interpretation of the nature of their appointments and the authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointments terminated are temporary in nature. Whether petitioners, who are non-eligibles, may be replaced with other non-eligibles.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants. The petition for mandamus was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the appointments: The Court held that the determination of the kind of appointment to be extended lies with the official vested by law with the appointing power, in this case, the Municipal Mayor. The Civil Service Commissioner's role is to approve or reject appointments based on statutory requirements, not to supersede the appointing officer's discretion on the nature or class of the appointment. The Commissioner's act of approving a temporary appointment as provisional was deemed an unwarranted invasion of the appointing officer's discretion and thus inoperative. Therefore, the appointments must be regarded as temporary as originally extended and approved as such by the Civil Service. On the replacement of non-eligibles: As temporary appointees, the petitioners enjoy no fixed or protected tenure. The inherent condition of a temporary appointment is that the services of the appointee can be terminated at any time by the appointing power. This is consistent with the ruling in Jimenea vs. Guanzon, which states that a civil service eligible who accepts a position in a temporary capacity is not entitled to the protection of security of tenure. Such an appointee's employment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power without the need to show cause.
Main Doctrine
The determination of the nature of a civil service appointment (permanent, provisional, or temporary) lies with the appointing officer, not the Civil Service Commissioner. A temporary appointee has no fixed tenure and can be removed at any time without cause.