Canonigo v. Ramiro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Antero Canonigo, Beata Morilao, and Francisco Artajo, all civil service eligibles holding permanent appointments as field clerk and market inspector in the Ozamiz City Treasurer's Office, were requested to tender courtesy resignations shortly after a new administration took office. When they refused, their positions were abolished by the Municipal Board through Resolution No. 282, effective May 5, 1960. The petitioners contend that this abolition was a pretext for their removal from office, especially since new positions were subsequently created by the Municipal Board. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, seeking reinstatement and back salaries. The petition was amended to include claims for damages and to implead current city officials and the City Government. The trial court rendered a decision on April 12, 1966, ordering the respondents to reinstate Francisco Artajo and pay back salaries to all three petitioners for specific periods. The respondents appealed this decision to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. 3. The Petition: The appellants (respondents below) raise several assignments of error, primarily arguing that the lower court erred in compelling the City of Ozamiz to recreate abolished positions, in considering the petitioners' appointments as permanent, in equating the abolition of positions with dismissal, and in finding that the abolition was done in bad faith. The Supreme Court, however, affirms the lower court's decision, holding that the abolition of the positions was done in bad faith and thus null and void, making mandamus a proper remedy to compel reinstatement and payment of back salaries. The Court also clarifies that municipal corporations can be held liable for back pay in such cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners' appointments were permanent despite the proviso "subject to the availability of funds." Whether the abolition of the petitioners' positions via Resolution No. 282 was valid or constituted an illegal removal in bad faith. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel reinstatement and appropriation for back salaries for abolished positions. Whether the City of Ozamiz can be held liable for the back salaries of the illegally separated employees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the abolition of the petitioners' positions was illegal and done in bad faith. The Court ordered the respondents to reinstate Francisco Artajo and pay back salaries to all three petitioners for the periods they were illegally separated from service.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the appointments were permanent. The clause "subject to the availability of funds" is a common proviso that cannot indefinitely render a civil service appointment conditional. Since the petitioners had served for a significant period and the fiscal year had not yet ended at the time of termination, it cannot be argued that funds were unavailable. Every civil service appointment presupposes the existence of a corresponding fund, and treating such a proviso as a permanent condition would prevent any civil service appointment from ever reaching the status of permanence, which is contrary to law. On Issue 2: While the Court acknowledged the legal distinction between 'removal' and 'abolition' (citing Manalang v. Quitoriano), it emphasized that the power to abolish is limited by the requirement of good faith. The demand for "courtesy resignations" just three days after the new mayor took office, followed by the persistence in seeking those resignations and the subsequent creation of new positions, clearly established bad faith. When an abolition is done for political reasons to circumvent security of tenure, it is a sham. Consequently, the act is null and void, and the resulting termination is legally classified as removal without cause. On Issue 3: Mandamus is the appropriate remedy in this case. Because the abolition of the offices was void, the offices are considered to still exist in legal contemplation. Mandamus serves to restore the petitioners to the enjoyment of rights from which they were unlawfully excluded. Furthermore, as established in Ocampo v. Duque, the writ can be used to compel the respondent officials to make the necessary appropriations to reimburse the salaries of those illegally dismissed. The act of appropriation in this context becomes a ministerial duty once the dismissal is declared void. On Issue 4: The City of Ozamiz is liable for the back salaries. Jurisprudence, including Ocampo v. Duque, supports the rule that municipal corporations can be held liable for the back wages of employees illegally separated from service. This liability applies even if the employees were involved in governmental functions. The Court dismissed the appellants' argument that there was no specific law authorizing such payment, holding that the illegality of the separation itself mandates the restitution of lost earnings as a matter of justice.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of a public office must be exercised in good faith; if done in bad faith, for political or personal reasons, or to circumvent the security of tenure of civil service employees, it is null and void, and mandamus is a proper remedy to compel reinstatement and payment of back salaries.