PABLO D. SUAREZ, GUILLERMO C. LUCAS AND GERARDO I. BAUTISTA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELEC­TIONS, EDILBERTO REGALADO, ENRIQUE ROA, AND NESTORIO BAUTISTA, RESPONDENTS.

Suarez versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is Suarez versus Commission on Elections, decided in July 1967. Three election registrars, Pablo Suarez, Guillermo Lucas and Gerardo Bautista, brought a three-pronged action against the Commission on Elections and the three men appointed in their place, Edilberto Regalado, Enrique Roa and Nestorio Bautista. They asked for prohibition to stop the Commission from relieving them and investigating them administratively, for mandamus to compel the issuance of their appointment papers, and for quo warranto to declare them entitled to the permanent offices of election registrar in Manila. The case matters because it draws the classic line between an appointment and a mere assignment, and because it fixes the moment when an appointment becomes complete and protected by security of tenure.

Procedural History

The petitioners first asked the Commission on Elections itself to reconsider its directives, and were rebuffed. They then came directly to the Supreme Court in an original action combining prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto. Their ancillary prayer for a preliminary injunction was granted, and upon the filing and approval of a bond the writ was issued. The Court therefore decided the case in the first instance, and its ruling is the only judicial ruling in the record.

Facts

On the first of February 1964, the petitioners held appointments as election registrars of the Commission on Elections, corresponding to items provided for municipal registrars. Their appointments did not name any particular station. They were in fact detailed to Manila and performed duties there by virtue of verbal assignments made by the Commission.

On the twenty-ninth of March 1966, the Commission resolved to appoint the petitioners as permanent election registrars for the first, second and fourth congressional districts of Manila, and directed its personnel office to prepare and issue the corresponding appointment papers effective upon assumption of duty. Before that resolution could be implemented, one Ernesto Verdejo, also an election registrar detailed to Manila, called attention to an unresolved letter-petition asking for his retention as one of the four permanent registrars in Manila. This triggered a restudy of permanent appointments of city registrars throughout the country. Permanent appointments of thirty-three city registrars were soon approved, but action on the four Manila positions was deferred pending a thorough examination of the service records of all registrars detailed in Manila.

On the twenty-fourth of August 1966, acting on the recommendation of its screening committee and after evaluating qualifications and service records under specific guidelines, the Commission resolved to appoint permanently, instead of the petitioners, the respondents Enrique Roa, Edilberto Regalado and Nestorio Bautista, together with Ernesto Verdejo. Their appointment papers were issued, approved by the Civil Service Commission, and they duly qualified. The petitioners and the other registrars detailed in Manila refused to yield their offices, and for this disobedience the Commission charged them administratively and ordered their preventive suspension.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners' original appointments of February 1964, which named no particular station, vested in them security of tenure in the Manila stations to which they were merely detailed.
• Whether or not the resolution of March 1966 was a completed exercise of the appointing power that vested irrevocable title in the petitioners.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections could lawfully revise that resolution and appoint the respondents in their place.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies the settled rule on when an appointment is complete, stated in Grospe versus Secretary of Public Works, which the Court quotes:

An appointment made by an officer duly empowered to make it is not final or complete until after the Commissioner of Civil Service has certified that such appointment may be made. Hence, without such certification, the appointment may be recalled or withdrawn by the appointing officer.

This rule bears on the case because the petitioners' appointment papers were never issued and no certification was had, so no title ever vested in them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the original appointments of February 1964 conferred no security of tenure in Manila. Following Ibañez versus Commission on Elections, decided in April 1967, appointments that specify no station, followed by mere detail to a place, entitle the appointee only to such security of tenure as the appointment papers actually confer, not to that of any place to which he may later be assigned. The Court stressed the demarcation line between appointment and assignment as two distinct concepts in the law of public officers.

On the second issue, the Court held that the March 1966 resolution was not a completed exercise of the appointing power. An appointment attains finality, from the standpoint of the appointing authority, only upon the performance of the last act required of it. The mere issuance of the resolution was not that last act, because under the appointing machinery in this jurisdiction the certification of the Commissioner of Civil Service must still be had as the ultimate act required to complete the appointment. Here there was not even an insinuation that certification was had, and the appointment papers were never issued. The Court added that while certification becomes ministerial when the appointee is qualified, the petitioners' qualifications and preferential right had not been finally ascertained, since the pending letter-petition of Ernesto Verdejo cast serious doubts on the initial choices.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Commission's seasonable order of a restudy, and its subsequent revision of the March 1966 resolution by appointing the respondents in lieu of the petitioners, were still well within its power. No question was raised as to the reasonableness of its criteria, and no valid reason was shown for substituting the Court's discretion for that of the Commission.

Doctrine

An appointment is not final or complete until the Commissioner of Civil Service certifies that it may be made; without that certification the appointing officer may recall or withdraw it, and the appointee acquires no security of tenure. An appointment that names no particular station, followed by a mere detail to a place, confers security of tenure only in the position actually stated in the appointment papers, never in the place of assignment. Appointment and assignment are distinct concepts, and a contrary rule would erase the demarcation line between them.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved, and costs were taxed against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an appointment is complete only upon certification by the Commissioner of Civil Service, and until then it may be recalled or withdrawn. Examiners use this case to test the appointment-versus-assignment distinction and the completion of appointments in the civil service.