Antiporda v. Ticao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Silveriano Antiporda served as a secret serviceman in the Iloilo City Police Department starting October 3, 1960. On January 23, 1968, his services were terminated by respondent City Mayor Reinerio J. Ticao on the ground that his provisional appointment had expired. Antiporda contended that he was already a civil service eligible at the time of his dismissal by virtue of his length of service and was thus protected by security of tenure. Procedural History: Antiporda filed an action for mandamus with damages in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 7593) to compel his reinstatement. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that Antiporda held a 'provisional appointment' under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260 and had not passed the appropriate civil service examination. The CFI further noted that while he had over five years of service, he failed to apply for a certificate of eligibility under Memorandum Circular No. 6 of the Police Commission dated April 1, 1968. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the CFI decision. He argued that by operation of Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act No. 4864), his five years of satisfactory service automatically conferred civil service eligibility upon him, making his dismissal without cause illegal and entitling him to reinstatement and backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner attained civil service eligibility by virtue of Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966 despite not passing a civil service examination or obtaining a formal certificate of eligibility.
Ruling
The petition is granted, and the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo is set aside. Private respondents are sentenced to pay the petitioner backwages equivalent to five (5) years pay without qualification or deduction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Eligibility: The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966, which took effect on September 8, 1966, explicitly provides that persons who have rendered at least five years of satisfactory service in a police agency at the time of the Act's approval are considered civil service eligibles. Since the petitioner had already rendered more than five years of service by September 8, 1966, he was deemed a civil service eligible as a matter of law. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a certificate of civil service eligibility is a 'mere procedural formality' and not a prerequisite for the eligibility itself, which was conferred directly by the statute. Furthermore, the petitioner could not have been expected to apply for a certificate under Memorandum Circular No. 6 (dated April 1, 1968) because he had already been dismissed in January 1968. Applying the doctrine in Lagampan v. Asedillo (G.R. No. 28353) and Cristobal v. Melchor (78 SCRA 175), the Court determined that since reinstatement might no longer be feasible due to the passage of time, the payment of five years' backwages without qualification or deduction was the appropriate remedy. The respondent Mayor's termination of the petitioner's service on the ground of an expired provisional appointment was therefore invalid as the petitioner had already acquired permanent status through statutory eligibility.
Main Doctrine
Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act No. 4864) confers civil service eligibility as a matter of law upon members of a police force who have rendered at least five years of satisfactory service at the time of the Act's approval on September 8, 1966. This eligibility is not contingent upon passing a civil service examination or the issuance of a formal certificate of eligibility, which is considered a mere procedural formality. Consequently, an employee who meets these criteria acquires security of tenure and cannot be dismissed on the ground of an expired provisional appointment.