ALFREDO A. AZUELO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. RAMON ARNALDO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Alfredo A. Azuelo, who has no civil service eligibility, was appointed
patrolman of the Municipality of Legaspi, Albay on July 1, 1954 with a
salary of P840.00 per annum. He served as such patrolman until March 7,
1956, when he was suspended by Mayor Ramon Arnaldo in connection with
certain administrative charges filed against him. On May 24, 1956, the
mayor withdrew his charges but continued Azuelo’s suspension pending
final decision in the criminal case for infidelity in the custody of
prisoners filed against him by the provincial fiscal on March 14, 1956.

On July 9, 1957, the mayor sent Azuelo a communication informing him
that because of the pendency of the criminal charge against him, he was
advising him that his temporary appointment as patrolman has not been
renewed as of the date of his suspension. On July 18, 1957, Azuelo was
acquitted in the criminal case, the court ordering the municipal
authorities of Legaspi to reinstate him and to pay him his salary from
the time of his suspension. In line with this decision, Azuelo sought
from said authorities his reinstatement and the payment of his salary
but to no avail. He elevated his case to the Office of the President,
but without awaiting the action of said office, he filed a petition for
mandamus against respondents seeking his reinstatement and the payment
of his back salary.

On December 17, 1958, the court, after
trial, rendered decision holding that Azuelo has been legitimately
removed as patrolman and so the municipal mayor cannot be compelled to
reinstate him. However, as he has been legally in the service from
March 7, 1956 to July 9, 1957, he is entitled to the payment of his
salary corresponding to that period amounting to P1,129.32, by reason
of which it ordered respondents to pay him said amount. The court
awarded Azuelo attorney’s fees in the amount of P300.00. Hence the
present appeal.

It appears that petitioner was not a civil
service eligible and so was given a temporary appointment as patrolman
on July 1, 1954 with a salary of P840 per annum. He served as such
patrolman until March 7, 1956 when he was suspended by the municipal
mayor in connection with certain administrative charges he filed
against him. On May 24, 1956, the mayor withdrew the charges but
continued his suspension in view of the case for infidelity in the
custody of prisoners filed against him by the provincial fiscal on
March 14, 1956. And on July 9, 1957, the mayor informed him that
because of that criminal charge his temporary appointment as patrolman
has not been renewed as of the date of his suspension.

Considering the above facts, the trial court made the following
conclusion: “Inasmuch as the appointment of the petitioner on July 1,
1954 was temporary in character; considering that his appointment,
pursuant to law, was subject to the pleasure of the Municipal Mayor of
Legaspi, Albay; and taking into account that he was notified on July 9,
1957 of his removal on that date, the conclusion is irresistible to the
effect that the petitioner ceased to be a patrolman of Legaspi, Albay
on July 9, 1957.” Hence, the court concluded that he cannot be
reinstated although he should be paid his salary corresponding to the
period from March 7, 1956 to July 9, 1957 amounting to P1,129.32.

We agree to the foregoing finding it appearing that the appointment of
petitioner is merely temporary and as such is terminable at the
pleasure of the appointing power. In such case, there is no need even
of any cause for such termination, although here the municipal mayor
had enough cause which was the criminal charge for infidelity filed
against him. It is true that petitioner was acquitted of the charge;
nevertheless such acquittal is immaterial for even without it his
employment could be terminated at a moment’s notice.^[1] Since petitioner was notified of the termination of his employment only
on July 9, 1957, technically he is deemed to have ceased only from that
date, and as such he is entitled to his salary corresponding to the
period of his suspension. This is more so when he was acquitted with
payment of his back salary.

It is contended that petitioner
has no cause of action against respondents because he has not first
exhausted all his administrative remedies to obtain redress before
filing the present action of mandamus. This is untenable, for while as
a rule administrative remedies must first be resorted to before court
action may be taken, that rule only applies when there is an express
legal provision requiring such administrative step as a condition
precedent to taking action in court. Here there is none. Yet,
petitioner elevated his case to the Office of the President but because
of the apparent inaction of that office, he was constrained to take the
present action. We find this action justified.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Montemayor, J., took no part.

---

^[1] Reyes vs. Donis, 103 Phil., 884; 56 Off. Gaz. (3) 509; Tolentino vs. Torres, 96 Phil., 522; 51 Off. Gaz., (2) 753; Brauda, et al. vs. Del Rosario, 103 Phil., 489; 54 Off. Gaz. (24) 6253.