ISIDRO B. RAMOS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Petitioner Isidro B. Ramos
was first appointed police­man of Tanay, Rizal, on October 1, 1933, at the rate of P240.00 per annum.  Subsequently, on October 2, 1937, he passed the patrolman (qualifying)
examination given by the Civil Service Commission.  Furthermore, he received pro­motions in
salary on March 14, 1939 (raised to P276.00 per annum) and on September
1, 1939 (raised to P288.00 per annum).

On December
2, 1941, he was
dismissed from the ser­vice due to immorality, without prejudice to
reinstatement, subject, however, to existing civil service laws and rules.

Ramos was thereafter
extended the following appointments:

Ramos continue in said last mentioned
position up to March 31, 1960.   On April
1, 1960 he was given “permanent”
appointment as Chief of Police of Tanay, Rizal, at the rate of P1,500.00
per annum.  Said appointment was approved
by the municipal council.  After this, he
received further so-called permanent appointments to the same position, raising
his salary, as follows:

Ramos last appointment as Chief of Police dated July­ 1, 1963 was received by the
Civil Service Commissioner on November
18, 1963 and approved by him on March 24, 1964. 
Said approval, however, was expressly stated to be only “for the
period of actual service rendered to continue until replaced by an eligible but
not beyond thirty days from the date of receipt thereof in the officer of the
provincial treasurer.” Said date of receipt by the provincial treasurer of
the Civil Service Commissioner’s aforesaid indorsement,
attaching the list of eligibles, took place on April 2, 1964, at the latest.

Ramos had taken the Civil Service examination for the position of
Chief of Police on November 23, 1963,
but failed therein.  So his only
eligibility remained that of patrolman.

Now, meanwhile, on March
15, 1964, attempts were made to remove Ramos in a so-called
reorganization of the police force.  And
finally on June 11, 1964,
Guillermo Castillo, who had civil service eligibility for the position of Chief
of Police, having passed the examination for said rank, was appointed Chief of
Police of Tanay, Rizal.

Ramos, on November
12, 1964, filed this
petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, against the Civil Service Commission, the Ma­yor,
the Municipal Treasurer and his newly-appointed suc­cessor, to declare illegal
and to restrain respondents’ attempts to remove him from office.  Preliminary injunc­tion was issued by the lower court on November 21,
1964, directing the respondents “to refrain from implementing the order of
removal from office of petitioner marked xxx from disturbing him in the
discharge of his duties and from taking any further action thereon; and the
respondent Guillermo B. Castillo from discharging the duties of Chief of Police
of the municipality of Tanay, Rizal.”

On April 7, 1965,
respondent Castillo died.  Nonetheless, the case proceeded.  And on March 2, 1966, the Court of First
Instance rendered judgment, ruling that Ramos’ la­test appointment was void to
lack of municipal council approval:  that
at any rate, the same was to last only not more than thirty days from receipt
of the list of eligibles and thus had expired when
his successor was appointed; but that he should be paid salaries from November
21, 1964 – date of issuance of preliminary injunction –
up to the date of appointment, as de facto officer.

Ramos appealed to Us to raise the purely legal question of whether
his patrolman eligibility is appropriate for the
position of Chief of Police, thereby rendering his latest appointment
thereto permanent.

We rule that appellant’s
eligibility was not appropriate; that his term of office lasted until May 2, 1964, thirty days after
receipt of the list of eligibles; that respondent Castillo’s subsequent appointment to the same
office was valid and effective; and that Castillo’s death on April 7,
1965 left the position vacant
up to the present, unless another valid appointment had supervened in the meantime.

As of July 1,
1963, the date of
Ramos’ latest appoint­ment, the position of Chief of Police had a separate civil service eligibility requirement.  It is clear therefore that the one who holds
only a patrolman eligibility does not have an
appropriate eligibility for Chief of Police. 
Considering the difference between the position and rank of patrolman
and that of Chief of Police, the requirement of a different examination for
eligibility to the latter position is reasonable and well within the powers of
the Civil Service Commissioner
among others, “to enforce,
execute and carry out the constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit system” (Sec. 16[b], Rep. Act 2260).  The Philippine Constitution provides that: “Appointments in the Civil Service, except as to those which
are policy determining, primarily
confidential or highly technical
in nature, shall be made only ac­cording to merit and fitness, to be determined as far
as practicable by competitive examinations.” (Sec. 1, Art.
XII, Phil. Const.)  It
cannot be denied that the appropriate exa­mination to determine fitness for the position of Chief
of Police is not that for patrolman but that for Chief of Police.

Furthermore, Sec. 23 of Rep. Act 2260 expressly states:

x                    x                      x

“Qualification in an
appropriate examination shall be required for appointment to positions in the competitive or classified service in
accordance with the civil service
rules, except as otherwise provided for in this Act:  Provided, That whenever there is a civil service eligible available for’ appointment, no person who is not such
an eligible shall be appointed
even in a temporary capacity to any vacant position in the competitive or classified service in the
government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation: Provided,
further, That non-eligible
employees who, upon the approval
of this Act, have rendered
five years or more of continuous and satisfactory service in classified
positions and who meet the other qualifications for appointment to their
positions, shall, within one year from the approval of this Act, be given
qualifying examinations in which their length of satisfactory service shall be
accorded preferred consideration: Provided, further, That those who fail in those examinations as well as those who
fail or refuse to take the
examinations when offered shall be replaced by eligibles:”

The position in question
is under the classified service; Ramos accepted his latest appointment thereto, dated July 1,
1963, without having
the requisite appro­priate civil service eligibility for said position.  Ac­cordingly, his appointment can only be
deemed provisio­nal and good only until replacement by one holding such
appropriate eligibility, in no
case to extend more than thirty days from receipt of the appointing officer of the
list of eligibles (Ferrer
v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-24418, January 25, 1967).

Receipt, as stated, of
such list, in this case took place on April 2, 1964.   Ramos’ last appointment there­fore extended
at most only up to May 2, 1964.  Castillo’s appointment in his
place on June 11, 1964 was
therefore proper and valid.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. 
Costs against appellant.

SO
ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.