FELICISIMO B. SERRANO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS VS. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

In order to promote scientific, engineering and technological
research, invention and development, the National Science Board was
created under Republic Act 1606. This Board was charged with
undertaking studies or investigations to acquire or discover new
knowledge, principle, process or information relating to science,
engineering or technology. The Board could originate researches and
undertake special research projects. To carry out its objectives, the
Board created the Rice Research and Development Project No. 2.10
charged with the function of undertaking researches in order to improve
the rice industry. Felicisimo Serrano of the Bureau of Plant Industry
was appointed director of said Project 2.10 and to work under him were
likewise appointed some emergency or temporary employees or laborers to
serve as such only up to December 31, 1959.

With the enactment on June 13, 1958 of Republic Act 2067, otherwise
known as the Science Act of 1958, the National Science Board was
abolished and in its place the National Science Development Board was
created charged with practically the same functions as the former.
Under Section 30 of Republic Act 2067, the projects already initiated
by the National Science Board were placed under the National Science
Development Board, among them the Rice Research and Development Project
No. 2.10.

By resolution adopted on August 13, 1959, the National Science
Development Board resolved to discontinue the Rice Research and
Development Project 2.10 after December 31, 1959 on the ground that
said project had already passed the research stage and was ready to
pursue activities on commercial basis which is the responsibility of
the Department of Agriculture Seed Board. Director Serrano was notified
of this resolution on August 30, 1959. Serrano asked for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision, but this decision was
reiterated in a letter sent to Serrano on November 18, 1959. Despite,
however, of the notice given to Serrano to stop working after December
31. 1959, the latter refused to recognize the decision of the National
Science Development Board and instead he and his men continued to work
in the project even thereafter, claiming that the Board had no power to
terminate the project because it had not yet accomplished its objective
of improving the rice industry on a permanent basis. Since the Board
refused to recognize the work done by Serrano and his men after
December 31, 1959, they commenced the present action before the
Municipal Court of Manila to recover their salaries and wages for work
performed after said date, and damages.

The municipal court dismissed the complaint for Hack of merit, and
when the case was taken on appeal to the Court of First Instance of
Manila, it met the same fate. This is an appeal from the decision of
dismissal of the court a quo.

The National Science Development Board, as already stated, was
created by the Science Act of 1958 as the highest scientific agency in
the country. It is vested with broad powers and functions which are
discretionary in nature, among them to formulate and coordinate the
(scientific policies and programs of the government. It is likewise
empowered to review and analyze existing projects or those that were
initiated by its predecessor, the National Science Board. Due to
financial limitations, it was given the power to establish a system of
priorities for scientific and technological projects.

In discharging its functions having in view the overall objective of
the law of its creation, the National Science Development Board, after
reviewing and analyzing the research projects it has inherited, might
find that some of them are no longer necessary because their objective
has already been accomplished, or because they have failed to realize
the purpose for which they were established for some cogent reasons,
and as a necessary consequence it might take the step that might be
appropriate on the matter. In this task, the Board should possess the
necessary power and discretion to review, continue, or terminate any of
the projects already initiated, as otherwise it may fail in its
mission. Under this view it cannot then be contended, as appellants now
contend, that the Board has no other alternative, nor discretion, to
act on those projects than to continue them indefinitely simply because
Section 30 of the Science Act of 1958 provides that “projects already
initiated under the National Science Board shall be continued under the
National Science Development Board.” This is the most sensible view,
for to uphold the contrary would lead to absurd results. That provision
only evinces an intent to continue the projects already initiated by
the previous Board instead of starting new ones to save money and
effort without negating the power to terminate those that may be found
to be unnecessary. This is the si tuation obtaining here. The new Board
found Project No. 2.10 to have reached the commercial stage, the only
thing remaining being its implementation by the Department of
Agriculture Seed Board.

Assuming arguendo that the project in question needs to be
continued as contended it does not follow that appellants cannot be
changed or replaced in the discretion of the Board for some were merely
designated to act therein while others were mere emergency or temporary
employees or laborers. They cannot therefore claim a definite tenure
behind which they can shield to continue in office. Their position is
precarious and can be terminated at will even without cause.^[1]

Much stress is laid on the note sent by former President Garcia to
the then Chairman of the National Science Development Board stating
that the project of Mr. Serrano should be continued and the payment of
his personnel should be expedited, which appellants consider as a
directive which the Board could not ignore. But the note can at most
have a persuasive effect and not as a directive that may nullify the
Board’s resolution of August 13, 1959 to terminate the services of
appellants. If the Board ignored such directive that is its
responsibility to the President. The resolution flows from the
authority If conferred upon it by the Science Act of 1958.

Appellants’ claim for payment of their salaries and wages on
equitable grounds reserve our sympathy, but our hands are tied by the
fact that they rendered the service in defiance of the resolution of
the National Science Development Board. He who claims equity must come
with clean hands.

The decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., and Makalintal, J., took no part.

---

^[1] Austria vs. Amante, 79 Phil., 780; Castro v. Solidum, L-7750, June 30, 1955; Mendez v. Ganzon, et al., L-10483,
April 12, 1957; Jose v. Rodriguez, et al. v. Ignacio Santos Diaz, et al. L-19553, February 29, 1964.