JOSE OSCAR M. SALAZAR, HENRY R. YASUL, JOSE E. IGTANLOC, APOLI­NARIO ROLDAN, RAMON A. ABENIR, JR., ALFREDO P. HILARIO, RUSTICO ICAMI­NA AND CONSTANCIO LEGASPI, PETITIONERS, VS. …

Asserting a vested right to, and security of tenure in, the
office of election registrar in the respective municipa­lities of Aklan province to which they were assigned, the pe­titioners
Jose Oscar M. Salazar (Kalibo), Henry R. Yasul (Banga), Jose E. Igtanloc (Numancia), Apolinario Roldan (Makato), Ramon A. Abenir, Jr. (Nabas), Alfredo P. Hilario (Kalibo), Rustico Icamina (New Washington), and Constancio
G. Legaspi (Balete) invoke
our jurisdiction, in effect, to nullify new appointments extended by the
respondent Commission on Elec­tions (COMELEC) to the respondents Theodore Formaran, Diome­des Tejada, Ruben T. Mobo, Ismael Iligan, Telias Tefalla, Eduardo Avelino and Ursino Tabañar as permanent election registrars, respectively, of
the municipalities of Kalibo, Banga,
Numancia, Makato, Ibajay, Altavas and Madalag, all of Aklan, in place
of the petitioners originally detailed thereat. 
Upon bond duly filed and approved, we granted the petitioners’ ancillary
prayer for preliminary injunctive relief.

The basic facts are not complicated.  On various dates in 1964, the petitioners
were extended by the COMELEC appointments as “Election Registrar in the
Commission on Elections”, corres­ponding to items provided in the then
current appropriations act for municipal election registrars.  Their appointments were certified by the
Civil Service Commission.  The
petitioners duly qualified, and were thereafter, by proper directives, detailed
to the municipalities of Aklan province heretofore
enumerated, They accordingly served thereat until, in December, 1966, the COMELEC
– conformably to Republic Act 4730 which required that “every election
registrar shall be ap­pointed to a specific city, municipality or municipal dis­trict”
– extended appointments to the private-party respondents as permanent
election registrars for specifically named municipalities, thereby replacing
the petitioners who were previously detailed thereat and who themselves were
extended appointments as permanent election registrars of other
specifically named municipalities.  The
petitioners challenge this last move of the COMELEC as violative
of their constitu­tionally guaranteed right to security of tenure.  The gravamen of
their thesis in this respect is that –

“While the appointments of herein peti­tioners did not specify
their assignments, the directives for them to assume office in the
municipalities where they are assigned at present, confirmed the permanency of
their appointments as Election Registrars in their respective
municipalities.  Therefore, the subsequent
appointments extended by the res­pondent COMELEC and approved by respondent Subido, in favor of the other respondents, are illegal and
void, since said appointments will have the effect of removing and ousting
herein petitioners from office as Election Re­gistrars and/or nullifying their
right to the various municipalities of their assignment;” (paragraph 18,
Petition).

The petitioners’ pose cannot be sustained.  In Ibañez, et al.
vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R.L-26558, April 27, 1967, we resolved the same issue upon the basis
of facts similar to those in the case at bar, in the fol­lowing language:

“* * * And the respective appointees were entitled only to
such security of tenure as the appointment papers concerned actually conferred
– not in that of any place to which they may have been subsequently
assigned.  * * * As things stand, in
default of any particular station stated in their respective appointments, no
security of tenure can be asserted by the petitioners on the basis of the mere
assignments which were given to them.  A
contrary rule will erase altogether the demarcation line we have repeatedly
drawn between appointment and assignment as two distinct concepts
in the law of public of­ficers.”

The petitioners herein are in exactly the
same position as the petitioners in the Ibañez case aforecited, against whom this Court rendered verdict.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed, and the writ of
preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved, at petitioners’ cost.

Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., did not take part.