Taboy v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners were appointed as laborer-helpers in the Province of Cebu in 1965. Their appointments were attested by the Civil Service Commission. However, these appointments were not submitted to the Provincial Board of Cebu for approval as required by Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. In January 1968, the Provincial Board disapproved most of these appointments, including those of the petitioners, leading to the termination of their services on January 31, 1968. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with damages against the Province of Cebu and other provincial officials in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement and back salaries or damages. The trial court dismissed their petition for lack of cause of action. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal in a decision promulgated on September 27, 1977. This current petition is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. They contend that they had acquired permanent status due to the Civil Service Commission's attestation and their length of service, and that their removal was politically motivated. The core issue before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioners are clearly entitled to the remedy of mandamus, given that their appointments were ultimately disapproved by the Provincial Board of Cebu, rendering them invalid despite Civil Service attestation and service duration.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners are clearly entitled to the remedy of mandamus for their reinstatement. Whether the attestation of their appointments by the Civil Service Commission and their length of service granted them permanent status despite the disapproval of their appointments by the Provincial Board; and whether the termination of their services was politically motivated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners were not clearly entitled to the remedy of mandamus as they had not shown a clear and certain right to reinstatement. Their appointments were not valid because they were not approved by the Provincial Board as required by law, and therefore, their services were properly terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to mandamus: The Court held that mandamus requires a showing of a clear and certain right, and it never issues in doubtful cases. The petitioners failed to demonstrate such a clear and certain right to the remedy of mandamus. Their claim for reinstatement was based on appointments that were ultimately disapproved by the Provincial Board, rendering their claim uncertain. On the validity of appointments, permanent status, and alleged political motivation: The Court reiterated that appointments to positions in the provincial service which are in the unclassified civil service must be submitted to the Provincial Board for approval. The attestation by the Civil Service Commission and the length of service do not cure the defect of lack of approval by the Provincial Board. Since the appointments of the petitioners were made without the required approval of the Provincial Board, they were not valid appointments, and thus, they did not acquire permanent status. Their services were therefore properly terminated when the Provincial Board disapproved their appointments. The Court found no evidence to support the petitioners' claim that they were removed from their positions because they were Osmeñistas. The fact that the Provincial Board disapproved their appointments, pursuant to the power granted to it by law, was the basis for the termination of their services, not any alleged political discrimination.
Main Doctrine
Appointments to positions in the provincial service which are in the unclassified civil service require the approval of the Provincial Board. Without such approval, the appointments are not valid, and the appointees do not acquire permanent status, even if attested by the Civil Service Commission or if they have rendered service for several years. Mandamus will not issue in doubtful cases, requiring a clear and certain right.