RAMON TAPALES, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Ramon Tapales, Petitioner-Appellee herein, was, prior to December 5,
1945, a duly appointed Director of the Conservatory of Music of
Silliman University in Dumaguete. On December 5, 1945, by a
resolution of the Board of Regents, upon recommendation of the
President of the University of the Philippines, he was appointed Acting
Director of the1 Conservatory of Music of the UP. Because of the
requirement of the UP Charter (Sec. 10), providing that deans; or
directors are to be selected from among the members of the faculty,
Tapales was on the same date (Dec. 5, 1945), extended an appointment as
professor of violin and chamber music. Such appointment (as professor)
was also necessary for salary rating purposes. On August 14, 1947,
likewise by resolution of the Board of Regents, Tapales was appointed
permanent and regular Director of the UP Conservatory of Music. With
the view of increasing his salary to an amount befitting his new
status, aa regular and permanent Director, and for salary rating
purposes, other appointment increasing his salary as professor of
violin and chamber music from P4,800.QO in 1947 to P7.560.00 in 1956,
were extended to him (Exhs. 2-6).

Under date of October 2, 1959, the Board of Regents. of the UP approved the following resolution—

“Term of office, duties and functions of deans mid directors—
“The term of office of all deans of colleges and directors or heads; of
schools and institutes of the University of the Philippines shall be
five (5) years from’the date of their appointment; and the  present
deans and directors who have served five (5) years or more, previous to
the approval of this resolution, shall continue to serve in such
capacities, only until May 31, 196Q, unless re-appointed for another
term of five years.”

“The
functions of the dean or director shall he to act as presiding officer
of the faculty of the college, the school, or the institute as
prescribed by the charter of the University and to exercise such other
administrative duties which the Board of Regents, on recommendation of
the President of the University may prescribe. Nd dean or director
shall serve as academic head of any department or division in his
college, school or institute.”

On April 18, 1960, respondent-appellant President of the UP, promulgated the following”—

MEMORANDUM TO
Deans and Directors—
University of the Philippines.

“Dean and directors whose terms will expire on May 31,: 1960;. as
provided, in the resolution of, the Board of Regents of October 2,
1059, are hereby informed that unless notified of the action of this
office recommending their reappointment on or before May 1, 1960 shall
consider their term as deans automatically terminated on May 31, 1960,
but shall remain members of the faculty with thy rank’ that they are
actually holding on the date of this, notice.

“You are adviaed of the resolution of the Board of Regents adopted in its meeting of April 12, 1860, which runs as follows:

”Starting with the new cleans and directors, every
dean shall be ent-tled to only one salary which shall be the salary in
the aejular scale of his rank as faculty member, except when a higher
salary is expressly provided for him by reason of superior
qualifications. The dean shall be entitled to reduce the number of his
teaching hours at his diccieticrti.”

lapales, not having been recommended for reappoint-ment as Dirsctor
of the Conservatory of Music of the UP, and the tarmination of his
appointment as such being imminent, presented to the CFI of Rizal,
Quezon City Branch, a petition asking that the Resolution of the’ Board
of Eegants of the UP dated October 2, 1959, be declared
unconstitutional and that the UP President and board to restrain said
respondents from carrying out and enforcing the resolution of October
2, 1959. Tapales further asked for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, to restrain said respondents from carrying out
and enforcing the Resolution and implementing the Memorandum Of April
18, 1960, from removing him frcm tho position of Director of the
Conservatory of Music and from appointing any other person to replace
him. The petition wag given due course, and the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for was issued. Respondents, answering, after tho
usual admissions and denials alleged as Special and Affirmative
Defenses, that the Director or Dean in the University of the
Philippines performs administrative function and not academic, that he
holds office at the pleasure of the Board of Regents and can be removed
without cause and without hearing; that what is protected by the
Constitution and the Civil Service Law is his position as member of
the academic faculty (professors and members of th!> teaching
staff), not as member of the administrative stall; that under the
resolution in question, petitioner remains and continues to be a
professor and member of the academic faculty; that the UP Charter (Sec.
6[e], refers to faculty and employees and not to Deans or Directors and
that petitioner had not exhausted the administrative remedies. In
connection with the writ of preliminary injunction exrparte, the
respondents claimed it should not have been issued because the
resolution is presumed valid; petitioner will not suffer irreparable
injury by the enforcement of the resolution in question; that refusal
of petitioner to comply with the resolution is a defiance of the duly
constituted authorities and the stay of enforcement of the resolution
will cause injury to the administrative policies of the University
which can not be compensated permanently. A prayer for the dissolution
of the writ of preliminary injunction arid the dismissal of the
petition was invoked by respondents. After trial, the lower court
rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which read—

“* * * In view of the above considerations, the
Court renders judgment one in favor of the petitioner, Ramon Tapales,
and again&t the respondents, the President and Board of Regents of
the University of the. Philippines, by declaring the Resolution of
October 2, 1959, NULL and VOID, being contrary to *£he Constitution,
the Civil Service Law of 1959 and even to the Charter of the University
concerned and, consequently, the Court permanently prohibits and
enjoins the respondents from enforcing the same, inasmucn as there was
a preliminary injunction, previously issued, the same is therefore made
permanent as against the respondents, but without cost.”

Respondents appealed directly to this Court, assigning five (5)
errors, allegedly committed by the/lower court, all of which tan be
consolidated into the following issues: (1) Whether or not the Board of
Regents of the University of the Philippines has the power, under the
Charter of said University, to fix the terms of office of deans and
directors to five years; and (2) Assuming arguendo that it has that
power, whether or not its resolution can be given retroactive effect,
so as to limit. to five years the terms of office of such deans and
directors who had been appointed in a permanent capacity before the
passage of the resolution.

For the purposes of this opinion, it would seem that the resolution
of the second question is decisive. For, assuming, in gratia argumehti,
that the UP Board of Regents has the power to limit the terms of office
of deans or directors, such limitation can not affect deans or
directors who had been appointed in a permanent capacity before the
passage of the resolution in question, such as the case of appellee
Director Ramon Tapales.

A dean or a director is embraced in the non-competitive or
unclassified civil service (Art. XII, Constitution, sec. 3, sec. 5 (e),
Rep. Act No. 2260, Philippines Civil Service Law). As such, he is
protected against removal or suspension except for cause, as provided
by law and after due process (Art. XI, see. 4, ‘Constitution; section
694 Rev. Adm. Code; sec. 32, Rep. Act No. 2260, Civil Service Act of
1959). The constitutional and statutory guaranty of security of tenure
is extended to both those in the classified and unclassified civil
service (Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil., 740; Garcia vs. Lejano, 109
Phil., 116. The cause must naturally have some relation to the
character or fitness of the officer or the employee, for the discharge
of the functions of his office. To apply the resolution of the Board of
Regents of October 2, 1959, to Director Tapales who had been appointed
in a permanent capacity prior to the passage of the resolution, would
result in his removal without cause. Without any reason whatsoever
relating to his character and fitness for.his office, his term of
office is cut. short, when it should .continue during good behaviour.
To shorten the term of a dean or director, officer or any employee, for
that matter, when at the time of his appointment, he knew he would hold
office during good behaviour or at least, he was made to understand in
virtue of his. selection or appointment, that he would hold office
during good behaviour, amounts to. a plain and simple removal without
cause, and without hearing or investigation. No officer or employee in
the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law (Lacson vs. Romero, et al., 47 Off. Gaz., 1778, 1785).

In view of the conclusions reached, We deem it unnecessary and irrelevant to discuss and determine the first issue.

It is contended in this connection, that the appellee failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies by not asking the Board of Regents
to reconsider the challenged resolution before bringing the matter to
court. An administrative review is not a condition precedent to
judicial relief against a statute or ordinance which is claimed to be
unconstitutional and void (73 C.J.S. 357), or where the question in
dispute is purely a legal one, and nothing of an administrative nature
is to be or can be done (73 C.J.S. 354). Here, appellee impugned the
constitutionality and validity of the Resolution of October 2, 1959,
and appellee’s,objection thereto is a purely legal one. .

In view hereof, the appellants are hereby permanently restrained
from enforcing the resolution of October 2,1959, against the herein
appellee Ramon Tapales, and other similarly situated and affected, with
costs against the appellants.

Bengzon,, C. J., Padilla, Baubista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.