TEODULO T. ORAIS ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, FELIPE ENELO AND LUIS MARTE, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. MAMERTO S. RIBO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES, BIENVENIDO G…

Orais versus Ribo

The Case

This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto and for a writ of mandamus brought by Teodulo Orais and his fellow provincial guards of Leyte against Provincial Governor Mamerto Ribo, Provincial Treasurer Melecio Palma, the Clerk of Court Francisco Lopez, and the men newly appointed in their places. The petitioners ask the Court to test the legality of the appointments of the new guards and to compel the Governor to reinstate them, to compel the Treasurer to pay their unpaid salaries from the first of November 1950, and to compel the Clerk of Court to turn over the prisoners in the provincial jail. The case matters because it fixes the rules on temporary appointments in the civil service, on the preference of veterans, and on the protection that Republic Act Number 557 gives only to eligibles.

Procedural History

The parties filed the action in the Court of First Instance of Leyte and submitted two stipulations of facts. The trial court rendered judgment declaring most of the petitioners without right to the positions and dismissing their action. It declared Felipe Enelo and Luis Marte entitled to continue in their positions, held the appointments of Bienvenido Gonzales and Constancio Acasio contrary to law, ordered those two to surrender their posts, and ordered the provincial treasurer to pay the salaries of Enelo and Marte from the first of November 1950. It dismissed the claims of Manuel Kangleon and Alfredo Lucin, absolved Governor Ribo and Clerk of Court Lopez, and taxed costs against all the petitioners except Enelo and Marte. The petitioners other than Enelo and Marte appealed, and Gonzales and Acasio appealed from the portion holding them not entitled to the positions. The case reached the Supreme Court on those appeals, and the Court affirmed the judgment appealed from.

Facts

On the first of September 1949, Teodulo Orais and fourteen others were appointed provincial guards of Leyte stationed at Maasin, and they assumed office the next day and performed their duties regularly. Each appointment carried the authorization of the Acting Commissioner of Civil Service, permitting it under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code to continue only until replaced by an eligible, but not beyond thirty days from receipt of the certification of eligibles. None of the petitioners had qualified in any civil service examination, except that Manuel Kangleon, Alfredo Lucin, Felipe Enelo and Luis Marte were veterans under Republic Act Number 65, as amended by Republic Act Number 154, though they too were not eligibles.

Governor Ribo ordered the services of all the petitioners terminated effective the last working hours of the thirty-first of October 1950, and appointed the respondent guards in their places effective the first of November 1950. The petitioners refused to vacate, invoking Republic Act Number 557, and remained in the provincial jail until the eighth of January 1951, when they turned over their quarters and jail facilities to the new guards. They received no salaries from the first of November 1950 onward, while the new guards were paid after their appointments were authorized by the Commissioner of Civil Service and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

The stipulation shows the pattern of replacement. Four eligibles replaced four non-eligibles. The remaining replacements were non-eligibles replacing non-eligibles, except that Bienvenido Gonzales and Constancio Acasio, both non-eligibles, replaced Felipe Enelo and Luis Marte, who were non-eligibles but veterans. No petitioner resigned, and none was ever investigated for cause.

Issues

• Whether or not the temporary appointments of the petitioners, continued beyond the period fixed by law, gave them any right to the positions.
• Whether or not the replacement of non-eligible guards by eligibles, and of non-eligibles by non-eligibles, was lawful.
• Whether or not the replacement of Felipe Enelo and Luis Marte, non-eligibles but veterans, by non-eligibles was lawful.
• Whether or not Republic Act Number 557 protects the tenure of non-eligible provincial guards.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed as to Manuel Kangleon and Alfredo Lucin.

Applicable Provisions

Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Acts Numbers 177 and 281, invoked by the petitioners, provides:

Temporary appointment without examination and certification by the commissioner of civil service on his local representative shall not be made to competitive position in any case, except when the public interests so require, and then only upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner of Civil Service; and any temporary appointment so authorized shall continue only for such period not exceeding three months as may be necessary to make appointment through certification of eligibles, and in no case shall extend beyond thirty days from receipt by the chief of the bureau or office of the Commissioner's certification of eligibles.

This provision fixes the temporary character of the petitioners' appointments and the time limit that they exceeded.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that appointments made under section 682 are temporary, and that holding the position for more than three months does not make the holder a civil service eligible. Neither does the authorization of the Acting Commissioner, permitting the appointment to continue only until replaced by an eligible, confer eligibility. The Court said that the holding of a position by a temporary appointee until replaced by an eligible, in disregard of the three-month limitation, is unauthorized and illegal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the replacement of the four non-eligibles by eligibles was in accordance with law, and that the replacement of non-eligibles by non-eligibles was likewise lawful under section 682.

On the third issue, the Court held the replacement of Enelo and Marte unlawful. As veterans appointed within the term fixed by Republic Act Number 65, as amended, they are preferred, and if that preference covered only appointment and promotion, a veteran would be in no better situation than a non-eligible who is not a veteran. Their appointment, however, remains subject to cancellation or removal by competent authority when the Commissioner of Civil Service certifies that an eligible is available.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Republic Act Number 557 guarantees the tenure of provincial guards and members of city and municipal police who are eligibles, and that non-eligibles like Gonzales and Acasio do not come under its protection.

On the fifth issue, the Court dismissed the petition as to Kangleon and Lucin, because the petition did not aver that their positions were usurped or that they were replaced.

Doctrine

A temporary appointment under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code never ripens into eligibility, however long the appointee serves; service beyond the three-month period and the thirty-day limit after certification of eligibles is unauthorized and illegal. A non-eligible may lawfully be replaced by an eligible, and a non-eligible may lawfully be replaced by another non-eligible. A veteran who is not an eligible enjoys a preference that protects his tenure against replacement by a non-eligible, but his appointment may still be cancelled or he may be removed when the Commissioner of Civil Service certifies that an eligible is available. Republic Act Number 557 shields only eligibles.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, without costs, so that Enelo and Marte kept their positions and their salaries while the other petitioners lost their action.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a temporary appointment, held beyond the period fixed by law, does not make the holder an eligible. Examiners use this case on the civil service rules on temporary appointments, on the veteran's preference, and on who is protected by Republic Act Number 557.