JOSE MONTERO, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. GUIDO D. CASTELLANES, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is a petition for mandamus filed with the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental by herein appellants Jose Montero,
Melecio Gayondato and Pablo Sorposa, to compel the respondent-appellee
Guido D. Castellanes, mayor of the municipality of Calatrava of the
same province, to reinstate them as policemen in said municipality with
back salary and damages. It is alleged that they were summarily and
arbitrarily dismissed in violation of the provisions of Republic Act
No. 557.

Answering the petition, the respondent mayor alleged, among other
things, that the provisions of Republic Act No. 557 cannot be invoked
by appellants since they were not Civil Service eligibles and their
appointments were temporary in nature; that mandamus was not the proper
remedy; and that appellants were legally relieved and replaced with
appointees with better qualifications and with preferential rights
under Republic Act No. 1363^[1] as implemented by Administrative Order No. 130, series of 1955, of the President of the Philippines.

At the trial, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts,
wherein it was admitted that appellants, who are non-civil service
eligibles, were appointed temporary policemen of the municipality of
Calatrava, Negros Occidental, by the respondent mayor on December 30,
1955, and took their oath of office the following day; that on January
6, 1956, the Assistant Executive Secretary, upon receipt of a telegram
from the respondent mayor recalling the appointments of appellants,
returned the appointment papers without taking any action thereon; that
appellants were separated from the service on January 16, 1956 and
thereafter replaced by the temporary appointment of other non-eligibles.

On the basis of the above stipulation of facts, the lower court, on
June 11, 1956, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for mandamus
for lack of merit. From that decision, appellants appealed to the Court
of Appeals. The question raised in the appeal being purely legal, the
case was certified to this. Court.

The appeal is clearly without merit

The appointment of appellants being admittedly temporary in
character, the same can be terminated at pleasure by the appointing
power. In a long line of decisions, this Court has held that one who
holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his
employment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power,
there being no need to show that the termination is for cause (UP et
al., vs. CIR et al., 107 Phil., 848; 58 Off. Gaz. [8] 1536; Quitiquit vs.
Villacorta etc., 107 Phil., 1060; 58 Off. Gaz. [10] 1967, and cases
cited therein.) Being non-eligibles with temporary appointments,
appellants contrary to their contention, do not come under the
protection of Republic Act No. 557. (Reyes et al., vs. Dones
et al., 103 Phil., 884; 56 Off. Gaz. [3] 509.) And the temporary
appointment of other non-eligibles to replace them is not prohibited.
Orais vs. Ribo et al., 93 Phil., 985; 49 Off. Gaz. [12] 5386; Sigue et al., vs.
Rabaya et al., G. R. No. L-11717, December 27, 1958.) In the
circumstances, it is apparent that appellants have no clear and certain
legal right to the positions to which they seek to be reinstated, which
may be enforced by mandamus.

It should also here be stated that appellants’ temporary
appointments were recalled by the appointing officer, and consequently
had never been approved or authorized by the Commissioner of Civil
Service as prescribed by section 682 of the Revised Administrative
Code. Not having any lawful appointment, said appellants may only be
considered as de facto officers, They had, prior to their
formal separation, been acting only under color of appointment and
cannot, therefore, claim for reinstatement as a matter of right.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Barrera, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] An Act giving preference
to veterans in appointments in the government, government-controlled,
or semi-government corporations, and for other purposes.