Provincial Board of Cebu v. Munoz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents-appellees, Antonio Munoz, Benito Roble, and Lorenzo Taboada, along with eight other provincial guards, were issued appointments as prison guards by the Governor of Cebu in June and July of 1965. These appointees were already occupying their positions and their salaries were increased under the Minimum Wage Law. While eight others lacked civil service eligibility, the respondents-appellees possessed varying degrees of eligibility. Their appointments were attested by the Commissioner of Civil Service as "provisional" under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260. 2. Procedural History: In March 1967, the Commissioner of Civil Service directed the recall of provisional appointments lacking Provincial Board approval. Consequently, Governor Espina issued an administrative order recalling such appointments for Provincial Board approval. The Provincial Board subsequently disapproved the appointments of respondents-appellees, leading to their dismissal. The eleven guards filed a mandamus action seeking reinstatement and back salaries. The trial court dismissed the case for those without eligibility but ordered the reinstatement of Munoz, Roble, and Taboada with back salaries. Both parties appealed. This Court initially denied the Provincial Board's petition for review but later reconsidered and reinstated it, leaving only the Provincial Board's petition for consideration. 3. The Petition: The Provincial Board of Cebu, as petitioners-appellants, seeks to reverse the trial court's decision ordering the reinstatement of respondents-appellees. They argue that the provisional appointments of respondents-appellees, attested as such under Section 24(c) of R.A. 2260, are essentially temporary appointments requiring Provincial Board approval under Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners contend that the trial court erred in distinguishing provisional appointments from temporary appointments and in concluding that the disapproval of these appointments should not result in dismissal, particularly in light of the fact that the Provincial Board's approval was a necessary prerequisite that was not obtained. The core of the petition is whether provisional appointments fall under the purview of Section 2081, necessitating Provincial Board approval.
Issue(s)
Whether provisional appointments, certified as such by the Civil Service Commissioner, are considered temporary appointments requiring the approval of the Provincial Board under Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether the disapproval of the appointments by the Provincial Board was lawful and valid. Whether respondents-appellees are entitled to reinstatement and back salaries despite the disapproval of their appointments. Whether respondents-appellees, if their appointments were disapproved, should be deemed reverted to their prior positions under the doctrine of reversion.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The appealed decision ordering the reinstatement of respondents-appellees is SET ASIDE. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether provisional appointments require Provincial Board approval: The Court held that provisional appointments, as defined under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, are indeed within the scope of "temporary employees in the classified civil service made in the absence of eligibles" as contemplated by Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. The law clearly states that appointments to temporary positions in the classified service made in the absence of eligibles require the Provincial Board's approval. A provisional appointee possesses some civil service eligibility, though not appropriate for the position, and is appointed in the absence of an appropriate eligible. This distinguishes them from purely temporary employees who may not need any eligibility. However, the crucial element for the application of Section 2081 is the absence of an appropriate eligible, which is present in both provisional and temporary appointments under the circumstances described. On the validity of the disapproval: The Court found that the appointments of respondents-appellees were subject to the approval of the Provincial Board under Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. Since the Provincial Board disapproved these appointments, they ceased to have legal effect. The recall of the appointments by Governor Espina for Provincial Board approval, followed by the Board's disapproval, meant that the appointments were never completed or perfected. Therefore, the disapproval was lawful and valid. On entitlement to reinstatement and back salaries: As the appointments were rendered invalid by the Provincial Board's disapproval, the respondents-appellees were not legally appointed to the positions. Consequently, they were not entitled to reinstatement or back salaries from the time of their dismissal. Their services were properly terminated because their appointments lacked the necessary approval. On the applicability of the reversion doctrine: The Court distinguished the present case from De la Rea v. Subido. In De la Rea, the employee was promoted to a different position, and upon invalidation of the promotional appointment, he was deemed not to have abandoned his prior office. In this case, the respondents-appellees' prior employment, if any, was likely casual or temporary, and their 1965 appointments were for the same position of prison guard. Since their appointments as prison guards were validly disapproved, there were no original positions to which they could revert. Reinstatement to a position for which their appointment was disapproved would be absurd.
Main Doctrine
Provisional appointments, even when certified by the Civil Service Commissioner, are considered temporary appointments within the scope of Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, thus requiring the approval of the Provincial Board. Failure to secure such approval renders the appointments invalid and does not entitle the appointees to reinstatement or back salaries, nor can they claim reversion to prior positions if those were also temporary or casual.