LUCIANO AZUR AND NICOLAS BULALACAO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD, THE PROVINCIAL TREA­SURER, AND PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, AND THE PRO­VINCIAL WARDEN, CAMARINES SU…

Azur versus Provincial Board

The Case

This is an appeal by two provincial guards of Camarines Sur against the Provincial Board, the Provincial Treasurer, the Provincial Auditor, and the Provincial Warden of that province. The guards sued for reinstatement, back salaries, and damages after their positions were abolished and their services terminated. The trial court dismissed their complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether the dismissal was proper. The case matters because it fixes the test for sufficiency of a cause of action and because it protects long-serving temporary employees under the Civil Service Law against abolition of positions done in bad faith.

Procedural History

Luciano Azur and Nicolas Bulalacao, together with one Pedro Pasilaban, filed a complaint for reinstatement and collection of salaries and damages before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Pasilaban later withdrew as petitioner. The defendants filed an answer, and later moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. It denied the motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs appealed. The record was at first erroneously transmitted to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court upon discovering the mistake. The case thus reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Facts

Azur and Bulalacao were provincial guards who had held their positions continuously for more than five years. They took the Patrolman Qualifying Examination in Naga City on February 27, 1960. On or about January 15, 1960, the Secretary of the Provincial Board notified them that their positions had been abolished by Resolution Number 16, Series of 1960, and that thirty days thereafter their work would be terminated.

On January 30, 1960, Resolution Number 16 was amended by Resolution Number 45, which, in order to economize, reduced the forty-five existing positions of provincial guards to thirty-five, eliminating ten positions. That resolution was made subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, and it had not been approved. The guards alleged that the real purpose was not economy but to replace them with persons belonging to the political party of the new provincial administration. They pointed to five new provincial guards hired by the provincial administration, who were later separated for a time and then allowed to work again on March 16, 1960.

The guards alleged that they rendered service continuously from February 15, 1960 up to the filing of the complaint but were not paid their salaries because the defendants were compelling them to submit resignations and clearances first. On February 23, 1960, they informed the defendants of the illegality of their separation and demanded their pay. They prayed for reinstatement, for the separation of the five new guards, for salaries until they resign or are legally separated, for six hundred pesos in attorney's fees, and for six thousand pesos in moral damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint states a sufficient cause of action, such that the trial court erred in dismissing it.
• Whether or not the allegation that the guards continued rendering service defeats their demand for reinstatement.
• Whether or not temporary employees who have served more than five years are protected under the Civil Service Law.
• Whether or not the abolition of their positions was legal.
• Whether or not the guards failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23 of the Civil Service Law, Republic Act Number 2260, provides:

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 tendered 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.

This provision is the core of the case, because it gives long-serving non-eligible employees a right to continue in office until the stated conditions are met.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is merit in the appeal. To sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the insufficiency must appear on the face of the complaint. The test is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. The motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged. Applying this, the Court found that the guards invoked a right to stay in office, alleged a violation of that right through bad-faith abolition, and alleged injury. These averments constitute a cause of action.

On the second issue, the Court held that the allegation of continuous service should be overlooked in light of the more prominent averments that their services had been terminated. To warrant dismissal for insufficiency, it should appear that a claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated. The Court said:

A complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty, from the face of the complaint, that plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved within the facts alleged therein.

On the third issue, the Court held that even if the guards were temporary employees, they were protected. From the allegation of more than five years of continuous service, it is not legally deducible that no new appointments had been extended to them. Under Section 23, a temporary appointee who had already served upon the approval of the Civil Service Law acquired a right to continue holding his position until three conditions are complied with: he must have been given a qualifying examination within one year from approval; he either failed in that examination or failed or refused to take it; and he could be replaced only by one with the requisite eligibility. Without these conditions, he had the right to continue in his position even permanently.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the abolition was not legal. While the power to establish an office includes the authority to abolish it, that power must be exercised in good faith, not for personal or political reasons, and not in violation of the civil service law. The complaint alleged bad faith, and on that assumed factual basis the abolition could not stand.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule and admits of exceptions. One well-known exception is when the controverted act is patently illegal.

Doctrine

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. The test of sufficiency is whether, admitting those facts, the court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts provable within the allegations. Under Section 23 of the Civil Service Law, a non-eligible employee who has rendered five years or more of continuous and satisfactory service upon the approval of the law acquires a right to continue in office until he is given a qualifying examination within one year, fails or refuses to take it, and is replaced by an eligible. The power to abolish an office must be exercised in good faith and not to circumvent the civil service law. Exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with when the act complained of is patently illegal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of dismissal and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, in favor of the guards.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a complaint is dismissed for insufficiency only when it appears to a certainty that no relief is available under any provable state of facts. Examiners use this case to test the hypothetical admission rule in motions to dismiss and the protection of long-serving temporary employees against bad-faith abolition of positions.