Roque v. Ericta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Basilio T. Roque and Emilio Ga. Acdal were appointed as special counsels to assist the Provincial Fiscal of Zamboanga del Sur. They served continuously and efficiently from March 1964 until July 31, 1968, receiving their salaries regularly. Their positions were initially abolished by Resolution No. 6 on January 1, 1968, but were subsequently restored by Resolutions No. 201 (for Roque) and No. 270 (for Acdal) on April 16 and May 21, 1968, respectively. However, on June 25, 1968, the Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 340, again abolishing their positions and eliminating their corresponding salary items from the budget for the fiscal year 1968-1969. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur on August 27, 1968, seeking to compel the Provincial Board to appropriate funds for their salaries. The trial court, presided over by Judge Vicente G. Ericta, dismissed the petition on November 26, 1968, citing the petitioners' failure to prove fund availability and the absence of sufficient showing of bad faith by the respondent Board. The petitioners' motion for new trial was denied on December 20, 1968, leading to the present appeal by way of certiorari to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants contend that the trial court erred in not holding that Resolution No. 340 violated Republic Act No. 4007 (Civil Service Act of 1959) and Section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code. They argue that the abolition of their positions was done in bad faith and for political reasons, contrary to law. They assert that under Republic Act No. 4007, having served continuously and efficiently for over four years, they had acquired permanent appointments and could only be removed for cause. The Supreme Court is asked to review the lower court's decision and declare the abolition of their positions null and void, ordering the appropriation of necessary funds for their salaries.
Issue(s)
Whether the abolition of the positions of petitioners-appellants, who were permanent civil service employees, was valid. Whether the respondent Provincial Board acted in bad faith or for political reasons in abolishing the said positions. Whether there were sufficient funds available for the salaries of the petitioners-appellants.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is reversed. The abolition of petitioners-appellants' positions as special counsels is declared null and void. The respondent Board is ordered to appropriate the necessary funds for their salaries for fiscal year 1968-1969 and subsequent years, along with contributions to the Government Service Insurance System.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the abolition of positions: The Court held that while the abolition of an office does not necessarily imply the removal of an incumbent, this principle applies only when the abolition is made in good faith, not for personal or political reasons, and not in violation of law. Petitioners-appellants, having served continuously and efficiently for more than four years as special counsels, acquired permanent status under Republic Act No. 4007. As permanent appointees, they could only be removed for cause as provided by civil service law. The abolition of their positions, therefore, was an unlawful exclusion from their right to office, as it was not done in good faith and violated their security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 4007. The Court emphasized that Republic Act No. 4007 was enacted precisely to grant security of tenure to special counsels who had served for a long period. On whether the respondent Board acted in bad faith or for political reasons: The Court found the justifications provided by the respondent Board for the abolition to be unimpressive and indicative of bad faith. The claim that the positions were unnecessary due to the transfer of duties to the Provincial Attorney was contradicted by the Provincial Fiscal's plea for more personnel and the Board's own request for additional Assistant Provincial Fiscals. The assertion of financial difficulties was also undermined by the reappropriation of funds from the abolished positions for increases in the compensation of the Provincial Vice-Governor's staff and the substantial discretionary fund of the Governor, which was even reduced for being excessive. These circumstances demonstrated that the abolition was a mere artifice to unlawfully remove permanent civil service employees, thus constituting bad faith and political motivation. On the availability of funds: The Court found that funds were indeed available for the salaries of the petitioners-appellants. Despite the abolition, the budget for the fiscal year 1968-1969 included an excess discretionary fund for the Governor, which, after reappropriation for the hospital fund, still left a balance more than sufficient to cover the salaries of the petitioners. This further supported the conclusion that the abolition was not genuinely motivated by financial constraints but by other, unlawful reasons.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of positions held by permanent civil service employees, if made in bad faith, for political or personal reasons, or in violation of law, is null and void, and does not amount to a valid removal of the incumbent.