RAYMUNDO V. ADLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MUNICIPALITY OF LA CASTELLANA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Originally elevated to the Court of Appeals, this case was
certified to this Court as the issues involve purely questions of law.

The Court of Appeals in its Resolution, adopted the defen­dants-appellees‘ counter-statement of facts as a fair
reproduction of the findings of the trial court, substantially in conformity
with appellant’s statement of facts as follows:

“The plaintiff Raymundo Adle passed the Civil Service Examinations as shown by his
civil service rating dated August 20,
1949 (Exh. ‘A’,
plaintiff), by virtue of which he was extended an appointment as Sergeant of Police
on April 1, 1951 (Exh. ’13’, defendants).  This appointment was submitted to and bears
approval by the Executive Secretary, but bears a notation by the Bureau of
Civil Service as ‘temporary pending report from the Government Service
Insurance System as to the appointee’s physical and medical examination’ (Exh. ’13’, defendants).

“During this time there were two positions of sergeant of
police in the municipality of La
Castel­lana, one
occupied by the plaintiff Raymundo Adle and one occupied by Teodoro Atesora, the latter was also appointed on April 1, 1951 (Exh. ’15’, defendants). 
The names of Raymundo Adle
and Teodoro Atesora as
Sergeants of Police also appear in the plantilla of
per­sonnel and annual budget for 1951-1952 (Exhs. ’14’, ’14-A’ and ’14-B’, defendants).

“That on November
24, 1951, the plaintiff Raymundo Adle was charged with several other co-accused in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental for the crime
of murder in Crim. Case No. 3220, ‘People vs. Rafael Lacson, et al.,’ by virtue of which he was suspended on the
same date, November 24, 1951.  In the interim, during the period of his
suspension, the municipal council of La Castellana,
in its Resolution No. 39, series of 1951, dated August 16, 1952, reduced the 47
existing positions in the municipal force of La Castellana
to 28, one of which is the position of a ser­geant of police so that instead of
2 sergeants of police, only one sergeant remained (Exh.
‘6’, defendants An­nex ‘A’, Record on Appeal pp. 8-9).

“The reason for the reduction of the police force and the
abolition of the positions was to implement the minimum wage law in favor of
the remaining employees.  This reduction
of the positions was likewise approved by the Secretary of Finance in its
letter dated November 18, 1952
(Exh. ‘7’, defendant).  After the reduction and abo­lition of the
positions of the members of the police force of La Castellana
on August 16, 1952 the lone
position of sergeant of police was occupied by Teodoro
Atesora who continued occupying the same position
until June 21, 1953, when
Sergeant Atesora was demoted to patrolman (Exh. ’16’, defendants).

“Subsequently thereafter, the position of sergeant of police was
occupied by Ramon Hechanova by virtue of his
appointment dated August 26, 1954
(Exh. ’18’, defendants; Exh. ‘O’, plaintiff).  Later Hechanova re­signed
and the position of sergeant of police is presently occupied by Teodoro Atesora who was
reappointed to the same position.  It
appears further from the record that plaintiff Raymundo
Adle was acquitted in the aforesaid Crim. Case No. 3220 in a decision rendered by the Supreme
Court on February 15, 1961.

“Plaintiff presented a voucher for the payment of his back salaries
from the date of his suspension on November
24, 1951 to the date of his acquittal on February 15, 1961, which claim was transmitted by
the municipal treasurer to the Provincial Auditor on July 21, 1961 (Exh. ‘2’, defendants), requesting for appropriate action on the
legality of the claim of the plaintiff inasmuch as his position was abolished
by the municipal council for the fiscal year 1952-53.

“The Provincial Auditor by its indorsement
of July 25, 1961 (Exh. ‘3′, defendants), returned
the papers to the municipal treasurer requesting information regarding the
abolition of the position of Raymundo Adle which papers were further indorsed by the muni­cipal
treasurer on August 8, 1961, to the Municipal Mayor (Exh.
‘4’, defendants), requesting information and by August 25, 1961, the municipal secretary returned the
papers with its corresponding indorsement (Exh. ‘5’, defendants), and again the municipal treasurer by
its third indorsement dated August 31, 1961 (Exh.
‘8’, defendants), indorsed the papers to the Provincial Auditor.  The Provincial Auditor, by its 4th indorsement dated September
6, 1961 (Exh. ‘9’, Defendants), indorsed
the claim papers for back salaries of Raymundo Adle to the Auditor General with the corresponding
statement of facts particularly pointing to the abolition of the position of
the plain­tiff as per Resolution No. 39, Series of 1952.

“And finally, by the 5th indorsement
dated October 23, 1961, of
the Deputy Auditor General (Exh. ‘10′,
defen­dants), the latter rendered an opinion that by virtue of the abolition of
the position of Raymundo Adle,
plain­tiff herein, on August 16, 1952, his claim for back wages cannot be
allowed except for the period covering the date of his suspension on Nov. 24,
1951, to the date of the abolition of his position on August 16, 1952, which
was recommended for payment subject to the availability of funds.

“The claim corresponding to the period covering this date, November 24, 1951, to August 16, 1952, was actually paid to
plaintiff (See Annex ‘C’, Record on Appeal, p. 11.)” (pp.
2-6, Appellees‘ Brief).

The Court of Appeals added that “before appellant passed the
Civil Service examination for patrolman, he had already been serving as field
sergeant of the municipal police force of La Castellana,
having been appointed as such on October
4, 1948.  After passing the
examination, he was given another appointment also as field sergeant with an
increase in salary at the rate of P960.00 per annum.  After his acquittal by the Supreme Court on
February 16, 1961, he asked for reinstate­ment and for the payment of his back
salaries during the whole period of time from the date of his suspension until
the date of his acquittal, or a total of P8,855.81;
but he was paid only the sum of P699.96 corresponding to the period from his
date of suspension to the date of the abolition of his position by means of a
resolution of the municipal council of La Castellana.”

On the basis of the foregoing facts, plaintiff-appellant filed
his complaint against defendants-appellees for
reinstatement “to his former position as Field Sergeant of the Municipal
Police Force of La Castellana, Negros
Occidental” and for payment of his back salaries in the amount of
P8,855.81, invoking the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that appel­lant’s
appointment was of a temporary character, so authorized by the Civil Service
Commission pending report from the Govern­ment Service Insurance System as to
appellant’s physical and medical examination, and that the abolition of 19
positions in the municipality’s police force, including appellant’s, was in
good faith and properly approved by the Secretary of Finance, in order to
enable the municipality to implement the Minimum Wage Law in favor of the
remaining employees.

Appellant reiterates in this appeal his contention that his appointment
on April 1, 1951, as Sergeant of Police should not have been held by the trial
court to be temporary, in character, as he had passed the civil service
examinations in 1948.  It is undisputed,
however, that his appointment was authorized by the Commissioner of Civil
Service as “temporary pending report from the Government Service Insurance
System as to the appointee’s physical and medical examination,” supra.  It was not until ten years later, after his
acquittal on February 15, 1961, in the Padilla murder case against Rafael Lacson et al. that plaintiff-appellant submitted his
physical and medical report on July 21, 1961, and in the meantime, nine years
earlier on August 16, 1952, defendant municipality had abolished the position
of police sergeant to which he had been appointed.  No error was committed by the trial court in
holding his appointment to be of a temporary character, as the passing of such
medical examination has been held to be a condition attached to an appointment,
which must be complied with within a reasonable time, for the condition of an
appointee’s health may deteriorate after the passage of a consider­able period
of time.^[1]

Basically, appellant anchors his complaint for back wages and
reinstatement on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557,^[2] then in force, which provides that:

“4.  When a member of the municipal police is
accused in court of any felony or violation of law by the provincial or city
fiscal, the Mayor shall immediately suspend the accused pending final decision
of the Court.  In case of acquittal, the
accused shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive
during suspension.”

Having been suspended on November 24,
1951, upon the filing of the criminal charge against him and having been
acquitted on appeal by this Court on February 15, 1961, appellant claims that
after nearly ten years of confinement and deprivation, he is now entitled under
the aforequoted provision of law to payment of the
entire salary he failed to receive during the period of his mandatory suspension.  Much as we sympathize with appellant’s
plight, his claim to such back salaries must perforce be valid only for as long
as the position held by him was extant and had not been validly abolished.  Thus, appellant was duly paid the P699.96 corres­ponding
to the period from his date of suspension to the date of the abolition of his
position.  But the position held by him
had been validly abolished by defendant municipality during the early part of
his suspension on August 16, 1952, along with 18 other positions in order to
enable the municipality to implement the Minimum Wage Law in favor of the
remaining employees and such abolition had been duly approved by the Secretary
of Finance.^[3]
Appellant himself in his complaint made no allegation
impugning the abolition of his position as tainted with bad faith.  Under such circumstances, appellant’s
complaint was correctly dismissed by the trial court, for regardless of
Republic Act 557 and of his suspension under the provision of Section 4
thereof, the abolition of the office held by appellant terminated his right
thereto and to any further com­pensation. 
The fundamental protection against removal of civil service employees
“except for cause as provided by law” does apply, where there has
been no removal of the employee but an abolition in good faith of his position,
for such abolition produces his lawful separation from the service.^[4]
Appellant, therefore, could no longer legally invoke his right to reinstatement
and back wages under Rep. Act 557 as the position held by him and from which he
was suspended had ceased to exist and had been validly abolished.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is affirmed,
without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., did not take part.

^[1] Tolentino, et
al. vs. Torres, etc., 96 Phil. 522.

^[2] A
similar provision is found in the second paragraph of Sec. 16 of Republic Act
4864 (Police Act of 1966) which superseded Republic Act No. 557.

^[3]
See Sec. 2119, Rev. Administrative Code; Republic Act No. 1063; Aller vs. Osmeña, 105
Phil. 243.

^[4] Castillo vs. Pajo etc. et al., 103
Phil. 515; Laviña vs. De Leon, et al. L-19796,
Jan. 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 230.