Mañgahas v. Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The President of the University of the Philippines recommended Federico Mañgahas for appointment as a temporary instructor, citing his qualifications including being a "veteran newspaperman and columnist." The Board of Regents approved the appointment as a temporary part-time Instructor in English at P60 a month, effective until the end of the first semester of 1934-1935, unless sooner revoked. Procedural History: Mañgahas accepted the appointment and commenced duties. Subsequently, the Board of Regents, citing a resolution that no employment incompatible with official duties shall be permitted, revoked Mañgahas's appointment effective July 12, 1934, due to his connection with The Tribune as a columnist, without prior hearing or notice. The Petition: Federico Mañgahas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the Board of Regents revoked his appointment without legal authority and in violation of Section 6(e) of Act No. 1870, as amended by Act No. 2759, which requires removal for cause after investigation and hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the revocation of Federico Mañgahas's temporary appointment as instructor by the Board of Regents, without prior hearing, violated his rights under Section 6(e) of Act No. 1870, as amended. Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the Board of Regents to reinstate Mañgahas.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The Court held that Mañgahas failed to show a clear legal right that was violated, as his temporary appointment was accepted with the understanding that it was revocable at any time by the Board.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the revocation of Mañgahas's appointment did not violate Section 6(e) of Act No. 1870, as amended. The appointment was explicitly designated as 'temporary part-time,' and the notification letter included the crucial phrase 'unless sooner revoked by the Board.' This indicated that the appointment was understood to be revocable at the Board's discretion, taking it outside the purview of the removal-for-cause provision which applies to appointments requiring investigation and hearing. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Board's discretion in making such temporary appointments revocable. On Issue 2: The Court held that mandamus was not the proper remedy because Mañgahas failed to establish a clear legal right that had been violated. The conditions under which he accepted the temporary appointment, including its revocability, meant he did not possess a vested right to continued employment that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The Court reiterated that for mandamus to lie, there must be a clear showing of a substantial right and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus would not lie to compel the Board of Regents to reinstate Federico Mañgahas, as he failed to show a clear legal right to the position. The Court found that his appointment as a 'temporary part-time instructor' was accepted with the understanding that it was subject to revocation by the Board, as indicated by the term 'temporary' and the explicit clause 'unless sooner revoked by the Board' in the notification letter. Consequently, the Board's revocation, even without a hearing, did not violate any statutory right protected by Section 6(e) of Act No. 1870, as amended, which pertains to removal for cause after investigation and hearing for permanent appointments.