CARLOS C. MANAOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. LEROY S. BROWN, CITY MAYOR, ANTOLIN TAN SANCHEZ, CITY AUDITOR, LEOPOLDO MANAPOL, IN-CHARGE, CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE, ALL OF BASI…

Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Basilan City dismissing herein
petitioner’s special civil action for mandamus to compel the City Treasurer to
pay petitioner’s beck salaries as City Engineer of the same City.

Petitioner was appointed City Engineer of Basilan
on July 17, 1963, which
appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 30, 1964.  An administrative case was later on filed
against him by the City Mayor, by reason of which the Commissioner of Public
Highways, in a letter dated August 1,
1967, detailed petitioner to the central office in Manila.

The administrative case was finally decided on November 19, 1968, in Administrative
Order No. 149 of the Office of the President. 
The dispositive portion of the order reads:

“Considering the nature of the offense committed by respondent
and in view of the strained relations existing between him and complainant, a
situation not conducive to the smooth functioning of their respective offices,
it is believed that respondent’s further stay in Basilan
City will not redound to the interest of the service.  Accordingly, City Engineer Carlos C. Manaois shall be transferred to another city, with the
admonition to be more careful and cautious in his future conduct.”

On November 28, 1968
the Commissioner of Public Highways addressed a letter to petitioner, who was
then in Manila on special
assignment, to proceed to Basilan
City “for the purpose of
turning over the City Engineering
office to Leopoldo Manapol,
officer-in-charge thereat.” Petitioner was further instructed to make a
complete clearance of his money and property accountability.  The instructions were complied with on January 15, 1969.

On January 29, 1969
respondent City Treasurer of Basilan, with a
concurring indorsement by respondent Mayor, advised
the Commissioner of Public Highways that he considered petitioner as having
ceased to be City Engineer of Basilan as of January 15, 1969, aid that thereafter
his salary as such would no longer be paid. 
The communication was returned to the City Mayor by the Commissioner,
who said that under the terms of the President’s Administrative Order No. 149
petitioner had merely been called to the Bureau of Public Highways in Manila on
special assignment, and that pending his transfer to another city he was still
the City Engineer of Basilan and therefore entitled
to the salary corresponding to that position. 
The Office of the President itself took a hand in the matter when, in a
6th indorsement to the Auditor General dated June 5,
1969, the Assistant Executive Secretary expressed the same view, adding that
petitioner’s acceptance of a temporary designation in Manila did not amount to
abandonment of the office to which he had been duly appointed.  The Auditor General, in turn, relayed the
said indorsement to the City Auditor of Basilan for his information and guidance.

Notwithstanding the opinion of the three offices aforementioned
respondent City Treasurer refused to pay petitioner’s salary, whereupon the
latter filed the instant petition for mandamus with damages.  The court a quo rendered its
decision on December 10, 1969,
dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner’s act of turning over his
office to respondent Leopoldo Manapol,
as officer-in-charge, on January 15,
1969, constituted abandonment thereof.

The decision is erroneous. 
Petitioner was called on special assignment to the central office of the
Bureau of Public Highways in Manila
by reason of the filing of the administrative case against him.  And when the said case was decided the
decision merely stated that “he shall be transferred to another
city,” since his further stay in Basilan City
would not redound to the interest of the service.  Presumably, when he was instructed to turn
over the office to an officer-in-charge and to clear his money and property
accountability, it was in contemplation of such transfer.  The fact, however, is that the transfer was
not carried out.  Petitioner, whose
appointment as City Engineer of Basilan had been
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, has not been appointed to any
other position or office.  His special
assignment in Manila
continued.  It is not correct to say
therefore, as the trial court did, that petitioner’s “acceptance of
another office sprang from and was accompanied by deliberation and freedom of choice…” He did not accept
another office by coming to Manila
on special assignment; and certainly it was not of his own de­liberate and free
choice that he complied with the assignment, ordered as it was by his superior
in the service.

The power of appointment, removal or transfer with respect to the
office here in question belongs to the President.  Such appointment was given to petitioner, and
not only has the President not removed or transferred him but has in fact
expressly ruled, through the Executive Secretary, that petitioner is still the
incumbent of said office.  A becoming
regard for the ruling of the President should have been guidance enough for
respondents to follow, considering that said ruling stemmed from and is in
accordance with his own decision in the administrative case, the implementation
of which, by transferring petitioner to another office, is entirely within his
authority.  Pending such transfer petitioner
remains the City Engineer of Basilan and hence
entitled to receive the salary of the position. 
To hold otherwise, that is, that he had vacated the office with­out
having been appointed to another, would in effect be tantamount to his removal
– a result that is both without legal basis and unwarranted under the terms of
the decision in the administrative case.

The case of Marcos M. Calo
vs. Francisco Magno, G. R. No. L-18399, February 28, 1963, is relied upon by
respondents and cited in the decision of the trial court.  The petitioner there, a taxpayer, questioned
the authority of the respondent to issue an order of distraint
and levy on the petitioner’s properties for the collection of his real property
taxes.  The respondent had been appointed
by the President, and took his oath of office, as Acting Treasurer of Butuan City, vice the duly appointed Treasurer who, having
been assigned to the Department of Finance in Manila,
interposed no objection to such appointment. 
This Court upheld the authority of the said Acting Treasurer to issue the order of distraint and levy, and held that there was a temporary
vacancy in the office to which he could be, and was, legally appointed,
pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 588. 
That case may be distinguished from the one now before us, first, in
that the respondent there was not only an officer-in-charge, as respondent Leopoldo Manapol is in the
present case, but the Acting
Treasurer who had been duly appointed by the President and who took the
corresponding oath of office; and second, in that the issue involved therein was the validity of an act
performed by him in that capacity for the collection of taxes, which issue has
no analogy whatsoever to the one in this case.

The argument that it is unfair to Basilan
City to continue paying the salary of petitioner without receiving the
equivalent thereof in services has no material bearing on the legal question
involved.  The remedy available to the
said city is non-judicial:  to get
petitioner to be appointed to another office in line with the terms of
Administrative Order No. 149 of the Office of the President.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and the
writ of mandamus applied for by the petitioner is granted, directing the
respondents, particularly the City Treasurer, to pay the salaries corresponding
to petitioner as City Engineer.  Costs against respondents except Leopoldo
Manapol.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Villamor, J., took no part.

Dizon, J., on official leave.