G.R. No. L-5700. December 18, 1953

The
petitioners herein were, prior to January 1, 1952, members of the
police force of Ozamis City, while the respondents are the City Mayor
and City Treasurer of the same. The petitioners were appointed to their
respective positions between the years 1948 and 1951, without any civil
service qualifications, their appointments being authorized under the
provisions of Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code (see
Exhibits A-1 to W-1.) On January 1, 1952 respondent City Mayor issued a
general order relieving all temporary employees of the city, including
petitioners herein, of their duties effective January 1, 1952, and
thereafter appointed others in their stead. None of the new appointees
is a civil service eligible, except three namely, the one appointed to
the position occupied by petitioner Leonilo Paña, that appointed to the
position vacated by petitioner Rufino Agustin, and Jose Belazo (see
Exhibits 1-4).

On January 29, 1952 the petitioners
instituted the present action of mandamus to declare the
above-mentioned general order, relieving them of their duties, as
“unjust, arbitrary and illegal”, because it deprives them of their
right to hold office to which they were lawfully appointed without due
process of law, and in violation of Republic Act No. 557 and the Civil
Service Law and regulations. They therefore prayed that the respondent
city mayor be ordered to reinstate them to their respective positions
and that the respondent city treasurer be ordered to pay their
salaries. The respondents filed an answer, alleging that the positions
held by the petitioners in the City of Ozamis have been vacated as a
result of the expiration of their three-month appointments, if they had
any such appointments; that the respondent city mayor is under no
obligation or duty to appoint them; and that they were separated from
the service by operation of law. It therefore prayed that the action be
dismissed. After issues were joined, the respondents filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that there is no sufficient cause of action. This
motion to dismiss was heard and at the hearing stipulations were
entered into and documents were submitted, all of which tend to prove
the facts already stated above. The judgment of the Court of First
Instance granted the motion and dismissed the case, and thereupon an
appeal was made directly to this Court, there being none but questions
of law involved in the appeal.

The petitioners were
originally appointed to their respective positions by virtue of section
682 of the Revised Administrative Code. The positions of members of the
police department of the City of Ozamis are embraced within the
classified service, as they are not expressly included in the
unclassified service (Sections 670-671, Revised Administrative Code).
Under the charter creating the City (Republic Act No. 321), the
appointments of the chief and members are not provided for in an
express provision of the law, so they are made by the city mayor in
accordance with the Civil Service Law, and they may be suspended or
removed only in accordance with said law (Section 19, Republic Act No.
321). The provisions of sections 673, 674 and 682 of the Civil Service
Law are, therefore, applicable to them. In accordance with section 682
of the Revised Administrative Code when a position in the classified
service is filled by one who is not a qualified civil service eligible,
his appointment is limited to the period necessary to enable the
appointing officer to secure a civil service eligible, qualified for
the position, and in no case is such temporary appointment for a longer
period than 3 months. As petitioners herein were not civil service
eligibles at the time of their appointment, and it does not appear that
they have since then qualified for the positions they are holding,
their respective appointments were only for periods of 3 months and not
more. Thus, we have held in Orais, et al. vs. Ribo, et al. (93 Phil., 985), that:

“Appointments
made under the section are temporary, when the public interests so
require and only upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner of
Civil Service, not to exceed three months and in no case shall extend
beyond thirty days from receipt by the chief of the bureau or office of
the Commissioner’s certification of eligibles. The fact that the
petitioners held the positions for more than three months does not make
them civil service eligibles. Also the fact that the Acting
Commissioner of Civil Service authorized their appointments ‘under
section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code to continue only until
replaced by an eligible’ does not make them eligibles. The holding of a
position by a temporary appointee until replaced by an eligible in
disregard of the time limitation of three months is unauthorized and
illegal. The temporary appointment of other non-eligibles to replace
those whose term have expired is not prohibited. Hence the replacement
of Teodulo T. Orais, David Lim, Domingo Saligo and Eulalio Bernades,
who are non-eligibles, by Isidro Magallanes, Pedro Flores, Francisco
Tavera and Narciso Ravago, who are eligibles, is in accordance with
law. The replacement of non-eligibles by non-eligibles is lawful under
and pursuant to section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. * * *.”

Wherefore,
the appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs in both instances against petitioners. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.