Bendanillo v. Provincial Governor
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the abolition of a position within the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu. The petitioner, Vicente Bendanillo, Sr., sought reinstatement to his position as Senior Deputy, arguing that the abolition was illegal. The respondents, including the Provincial Governor and Provincial Board, maintained that the position was validly abolished. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Deputy and his appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission as temporary. Subsequently, the Provincial Board, through Resolution No. 870, series of 1965, disapproved the creation or incorporation of this position. The petitioner sought mandamus for reinstatement, but the lower court upheld the Provincial Board's action, finding no evidence of bad faith in the abolition of the position. This appeal is from that lower court decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant appeals the lower court's decision affirming the abolition of his position. He argues that the abolition was illegal and violated his civil service rights. The appeal contends that the resolutions relied upon by the respondents did not effectively abolish his position. However, the court notes that the crucial resolution was Resolution No. 870, which disapproved the creation of the position, and that the petitioner's appointment was temporary, making him removable at pleasure.
Issue(s)
Whether the abolition of the petitioner's position by the Provincial Board was legal. Whether the petitioner, as a temporary appointee, possessed security of tenure that would prevent his removal through the abolition of his position.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the abolition of the petitioner's position and denying his prayer for reinstatement. The Court found no evidence of bad faith in the abolition and noted that the petitioner's appointment was temporary, thus not protected by security of tenure.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the abolition of the petitioner's position: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the abolition of an office or position must be made in good faith and not as a means to remove an incumbent in violation of civil service law. However, in this case, there was no evidence presented to show that the abolition was tainted by bad faith. The Provincial Board's resolutions (Nos. 352 and 892) indicated a policy of reducing positions to effect salary savings and revert funds to public improvements, and to abolish positions vacated by death, resignation, or retirement, except those under the Provincial Treasurer, in line with the policy of reducing offices. Resolution No. 870, which disapproved the creation of the petitioner's position, was based on the Provincial Treasurer's opinion against creating new positions, demonstrating a legitimate administrative consideration rather than an improper motive. The Court found that the step taken by the Provincial Board was a clear indication of its decision to abolish the position, and this action was free from legal infirmity. On the security of tenure of a temporary appointee: The Court emphasized that security of tenure, as guaranteed by the Constitution, applies to officers and employees in the civil service who are not removable except for cause provided by law. However, this protection does not extend to temporary appointees. The petitioner's appointment was explicitly approved under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, which designates it as temporary in nature. As a temporary employee, the petitioner was removable at the pleasure of the appointing power. Therefore, when Resolution No. 870 was enacted, the abolition of his position did not constitute an illegal removal or suspension, as his temporary appointment did not grant him the security of tenure that would prevent the extinguishment of his right to the position upon its abolition. The Court cited Manalang v. Quitoriano and Cruz v. Primicias, Jr. to support the principle that the abolition of an office extinguishes the right of the incumbent thereto, especially when the appointment is temporary.
Main Doctrine
The abolition of a public office or position must be made in good faith and not as a means to remove an incumbent in violation of civil service law. However, a temporary appointee does not possess security of tenure and is removable at the pleasure of the appointing power.