Manaois v. Brown
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Carlos C. Manaois was appointed City Engineer of Basilan City and his appointment was confirmed. Subsequently, an administrative case was filed against him, leading to his detail to the central office in Manila. The Office of the President, in resolving the administrative case, ordered that Manaois be transferred to another city due to strained relations and the interest of the service, while admonishing him to be more careful in his conduct. 2. Procedural History: Following the administrative order, Manaois was instructed to turn over his office in Basilan City and complete his accountability clearances, which he did on January 15, 1969. The City Treasurer of Basilan, with the Mayor's concurrence, considered Manaois to have ceased being City Engineer as of that date and stopped his salary payments. The Commissioner of Public Highways and the Office of the President, however, maintained that Manaois remained City Engineer pending his transfer and was entitled to his salary. Despite these opinions, the City Treasurer refused payment, prompting Manaois to file a special civil action for mandamus. The Court of First Instance of Basilan City dismissed the petition, ruling that Manaois's act of turning over his office constituted abandonment. 3. The Petition: This case is an appeal by certiorari from the dismissal of Manaois's petition for mandamus. The petitioner argues that the lower court erred in finding abandonment, asserting that his detail to Manila was a special assignment, not an acceptance of another office, and that the transfer ordered by the President was never effectuated. He contends that pending such transfer, he remains the duly appointed City Engineer of Basilan and is entitled to his back salaries. The core of the petition is to compel the respondents, particularly the City Treasurer, to pay his salaries as City Engineer.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's act of turning over his office to the officer-in-charge constituted abandonment of his position as City Engineer of Basilan City. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the salary corresponding to his position as City Engineer of Basilan City.
Ruling
The decision of the trial court is reversed. The writ of mandamus is granted, directing the respondents, particularly the City Treasurer, to pay the salaries corresponding to petitioner as City Engineer. Costs are against respondents except Leopoldo Manapol.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of office: The Court held that the petitioner did not abandon his office as City Engineer of Basilan City. He was called on a special assignment to the central office in Manila due to an administrative case filed against him. The decision in the administrative case merely stated that he "shall be transferred to another city," indicating a contemplation of transfer, not an immediate removal or abandonment. The instruction to turn over the office and clear his accountability was in anticipation of such a transfer. However, the transfer was never carried out, and petitioner was not appointed to any other position. His special assignment in Manila continued. Therefore, it was incorrect to conclude that he "accepted another office" or that his compliance with the assignment was of his own "deliberate and free choice." His compliance was an order from his superior. The power of appointment, removal, or transfer for the position of City Engineer of Basilan City belongs to the President. The President, through the Executive Secretary, had expressly ruled that petitioner remained the incumbent of the office. To hold otherwise would effectively amount to his removal without legal basis and contrary to the terms of the administrative decision. The argument that he had vacated the office without being appointed to another would be tantamount to his removal, which is unwarranted. On the entitlement to back salaries: The Court ruled that pending his transfer to another city, as contemplated by Administrative Order No. 149, petitioner remained the City Engineer of Basilan and was therefore entitled to receive the salary corresponding to that position. The President, who has the power of appointment and transfer, had not removed or transferred him. In fact, the Office of the President had explicitly ruled that he was still the incumbent. The Court emphasized that a "becoming regard for the ruling of the President" should have guided the respondents. The fact that the transfer was not effected meant that his original position was still legally his. The argument that it was unfair to Basilan City to pay his salary without receiving services in return was deemed to have no material bearing on the legal question. The remedy for the city was non-judicial, to facilitate his appointment to another office in line with the President's decision.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who is called on a special assignment by his superior, and who complies with such order, does not commit abandonment of his permanent office, especially when the transfer contemplated by the order is not carried out and he has not been appointed to any other position. Pending such transfer, he remains entitled to the salary of his original position.