MANUEL V. FESTEJO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. JORGE BARRERAS, ANGEL TORRIJOS, PROVINCIAL BRANCH MANAGER, PVTA, ABRA, EDUARDO BANANAL, GENERAL MANAGER, PVTA, CUBA, QUEZON CITY, ROS…

Festejo versus Barreras

The Case

This is a special civil action for quo warranto and certiorari with preliminary injunction, brought by Manuel Festejo against Jorge Barreras and the officers of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, to test who is lawfully entitled to the position of Assistant Provincial Branch Manager of that agency in Abra. Festejo had been appointed to the post under a provisional appointment, and he was removed and replaced by Barreras. The case matters because it draws the line, for every Bar candidate, between a temporary appointment and a provisional appointment under the Civil Service Act of 1959, and it fixes the rule on when a provisional appointee may lawfully be separated from the service.

Procedural History

Festejo filed the special civil action in the Court of First Instance of Abra. The trial court first denied his prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. After hearing the case on the merits, however, the trial court rendered judgment in his favor, declaring Barreras's appointment null and void and declaring Festejo the rightful holder and incumbent of the position, entitled to remain with all its emoluments, rights and privileges until he resigns, is removed for cause, or the position becomes vacant as provided by law. The respondents appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal in December 1969.

Facts

Festejo is a member of the Philippine Bar and, as such, a civil service eligible. On March 13, 1961, he was appointed Tobacco Inspector II of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration at an annual salary of 3,108 pesos. His salary was later increased, and he was permanently appointed Legal Officer at a higher salary effective January 1, 1963. On July 1, 1963, he received another appointment, this time as Assistant Provincial Branch Manager in Abra at an annual salary of 4,404 pesos. That appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service under Section 24, paragraph (c), of Republic Act Number 2260.

Nearly five months later, the General Manager, Eduardo Bananal, wrote Festejo a letter dated November 27, 1963, informing him that his services as Assistant Provincial Branch Manager would be terminated at the close of office hours on December 31, 1963. In the meantime, on December 16, 1963, Jorge Barreras, also a member of the bar, was appointed to replace him. That appointment was confirmed by the Board of Directors of the agency and approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, again under Section 24, paragraph (c), of Republic Act Number 2260, on June 29, 1964, on which date Festejo was still holding office.

Because Barreras assumed office by virtue of that appointment, Festejo instituted the special civil action on July 2, 1964, questioning the legality of the appointment and seeking to enjoin Barreras from further exercising the duties of the office.

Issues

• Whether or not the services of an appointee who is a civil service eligible, though not eligible for the particular position, and who is therefore appointed provisionally under Section 24, paragraph (c), of the Civil Service Act, may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority and without his consent.
• Whether or not a provisional appointment under Section 24, paragraph (c), is of the same nature as a temporary appointment under Section 24, paragraph (d), such that both are terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power.
• Whether or not the appointment of Barreras may stand once the termination of Festejo is held illegal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24, paragraph (c), of Republic Act Number 2260, the Civil Service Act of 1959, provides:

Provisional Appointment. - A provisional appointment may be issued upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereto to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service, whenever a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service and there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment.

This is the provision under which Festejo was appointed, and it is the measure of how long his tenure may last.

Section 24, paragraph (d), of the same Act provides:

Temporary Appointment. - A person may receive a temporary appointment to a position needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months, provided that preference in filling such position be given to persons on appropriate eligible lists.

This is the provision the respondents invoke by analogy, and the Court holds that it contemplates an entirely different situation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the termination of Festejo's services was illegal. A provisional appointment is good until replacement by a civil service eligible, and in no case beyond thirty days from the date of receipt by the appointing officer of the certificate of eligibles. The letter of November 27, 1963, advising Festejo that his services were being terminated as of December 31, 1963, therefore cannot have any effect.

On the second issue, the Court rejects the argument that a provisional appointment and a temporary appointment are the same in nature. Each provision contemplates an entirely different situation. A temporary appointment fills a position needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months, and the law merely requires that preference be given to persons on appropriate eligible lists, which presupposes that even a non-eligible may be appointed. A provisional appointment, on the other hand, is intended for the contingency that a vacancy occurs, the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service, and there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment. The appointee must anyway be a civil service eligible, one who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise meets the requirements for a regular position. Both tenures are terminable by the appointing power, but a temporary appointment may be terminated at pleasure because it involves no element of permanence, while a provisional appointment is terminable only upon the certification of an appropriate eligible. The Court also declines to follow the contrary indorsements of the Commissioner of Civil Service, holding that the parity drawn there between the two appointments appears more as something assumed than as a well studied conclusion, and that the cases cited involved temporary, not provisional, appointments.

On the third issue, the Court holds that, correspondingly, the appointment of Barreras cannot stand.

Doctrine

A provisional appointment under Section 24, paragraph (c), of the Civil Service Act is good until replacement by a civil service eligible, and in no case beyond thirty days from the date of receipt by the appointing officer of the certificate of eligibles. It is not terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority. A temporary appointment under Section 24, paragraph (d), by contrast, is for work needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months and may be terminated at pleasure, because it carries no element of permanence. The two are distinct categories, and the provisional appointee, being himself a civil service eligible, holds until an appropriate eligible is certified. Once the termination of the provisional appointee is illegal, the appointment of his replacement cannot stand.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the appellants, so that Festejo was declared the rightful holder of the position and Barreras's appointment was voided.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a provisional appointment is good until replacement by a civil service eligible and in no case beyond thirty days from receipt by the appointing officer of the certificate of eligibles. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a provisional appointment under Section 24, paragraph (c), and a temporary appointment under Section 24, paragraph (d), of the Civil Service Act.