ANTONIA A. YEE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF ANTIQUE, HON. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, AND HON. COMMISSIONE…

* * * declaring illegal and contrary to law the removal of
the petitioner from her position as school teacher in the Division of
Antique on October 28, 1957, and ordering the respondents to roinstate
the petitioner forthwith to her former position, with all the
privileges appurtenant thereto, and to cause to be paid her salary of
P140.00 a month from November 1, 1957 until the date of her
reinstatement, without pronouncement as to costs (civil case No. 12)
ilpon a stipulation of facts submitted by the parties which is, as
follows:

1. That the petitioner was a public school teacher and had been appointed as, such teacher in the Division of Antique in 1951;
2. That
   the petitioner was a civil service eligible as a regular national
   teacher having passed the Junior Teachers’ (Regular) Examination that
   was given on or about December 29, 1955;

3. That the petitioner was receiving a monthly salary of P140.00 as such teacher;
4. That
   in the school year 1957-1958 the petitioner was actually teaching in
   the Buhang Elementary School, Buhang, Hamtic, Antique;

5. That petitioner having
   married Mr. Ng Foo alias Pio Chet Yee a Chinese citizen, on August 10,
   1957, is presently a Chinese citizen:

6. That effective sometime on
   October 28, 1957 the petitioner was removed from her teaching service
   by virtue of Special Order No. 296, series of 1957, dated October 25,
   1957, issued by the Division Superintendent of Schools of Antique
   hereto attached as “Annex A”, and this was pursuant to the 2nd
   indorsement of the Director of Public Schools dated October 14, 1957,
   hereto attached (as) “Annex B”, disauthoriznig the continuance in the
   service of the petitioner on account of Circular No. 40, series of
   1947, hereto attached as
   “Annex C”;

7. That prior to the
   effectivity of the order of removal, the petitioner wrote a letter to
   the Commissioner of Civil Service dated October 25, 1957 hereto
   attached as “Annex D”;

8. That
   petitioner wrote another letter dated September 26, 1958 addressed to
   the Division Superintendent of Schools of Antique asking for
   reinstatement which is hereto attached as “Annex E”;

9. That
   Special Order No. 296 of the Division Superintendent of Schools of
   Antique (Annex A), the ruling of the Director of Public Schools in his
   2nd indorsement dated October 14, 1957 (Annex B), and circular No. 40,
   series of 1947 (Annex C) had never been appealed by the petitioner to
   the Secretary of Education;

10. That when this case was
    filed sometime on October 11, 1958, the original respondents were only
    the Directof of Public Schools and the Division Superintendent of
    Schools of Antique;

11. That the petitioner came
    to know for the first time of the actions taken on her letter of
    October 25, 1957. (Annex D) herein, sometime on January 9, 1959 when
    the respondents Division Superintendent of Schools and the Director of
    Public Schools submitted their evidence in support of their motion to
    dismiss and which documents are hereto attached as Annexes F, F-1, F-2,
    F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6 wherein it appears that the Secretary of
    Education in its 3rd indorsement dated March 17, 1958 (Annex F-3)
    concurs with the recommendation of the Director of Public Schools for
    denial of the reinstatement of the petitioner to the service (Annex
    F-4) and that on August 26, 1958, in its 4th indorsement the
    Commissioner of Civil Serviee likewise concurs in the action separating
    Mrs. Antonia A. Yee from the teaching service (Annex F-2);

12. That petitioner learned of
    the actions taken by the respondents on her letter dated September 26,
    1958 (Annex E) sometime in May, 1959 and which actions axe embodied in
    the indorsements hereto attached as Annexes G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5,
    G-6 and G-7 indicating that in the 3rd indorsement dated February 2,
    1959 (Annex G-4) the Secretary of Education ruled that Mrs, Antonia A.
    Yee is still disqualified from holding any position in the teaching
    service reiterating its position previously stated in the 3rd
    indorsement dated March 17, 1958 relative to the same matter (Annex
    F-3), and that this reiterated ruling of the Secretary of Education was
    duly noted by the Commissioner of Civil Service on March 24, 1959
    (Annex G-3);

13. That the original petition
    for mandamus was filed on October 11, 1958 against the Director of
    Public Schools and the Division Superintendent of Schools as the stated
    respondents; that by virtue of the order of the Court, dated February
    16, 1969, defetring the determination of said motion to dismiss,
    respondents’ answer to the original petition was submitted to the Court
    on February 16, 1959; that on February 18, 1959 petitioner filed a
    motion for leave to include the Secretary of Education and the
    Commissioner of Civil Service as co-respondents; that to this motion,
    an opposition to the same was filed on February 20, 1959 by the
    original respondents; that in its order of February 23, 1959 the Court
    ordered the joining of the Secretary of Education and the Commissioner
    of Civil Service as additional respondents,

14. That on February 23, 1959,
    petitioner submitted her amended petition for mandamus wherein the
    additional respondents have been included, to which a motion to dismiss
    dated April 7, 1959 was filed by the respondents and said motion to
    dismiss was denied by the Court in its order of July 24, 1959, but in
    that same order, petitioner was directed to amend its petition to
    include averments of the cause of action against the Secretary of
    Education and the Commissioner of Civil Service; that on July 30, 1959,
    an amended petition for mandamus was filed by the petitioner against
    all the herein respondents and the corresponding answer to the amended
    petition was submitted in behalf of the same respondents on July 31,
    1969. * * * “.

The questions to determine are whether the appellee’s removal as
public school teacher from the Euhang Elementary School, Hamtic,
Antique, is illegal; whether she has a cause of action against the
appellants and by mandamus proceedings may secure reinstatement to her
former position; and whether she has exhausted all administrative
remedies.

A cause of action exists if upon the facts alleged in a complaint
admitted by the adverse party or proved by admissible and credible
evidence a valid judgment may be rendered by a competent court. In her
petition for mandamus the appellee alleges that she was illegally
removed from her teaching position. If that allegation be established
or proved, a valid judgment may be rendered reinstating her to her
position. Hence, a cause of action exists against those responsible for
her removal from her position and the remedy of mandamus is available
to secure her reinstatement thereto.

There is, however, no doubt that her removal as a public school
teacher because of loss of Filipino citizenship is legal. Not being
included in section 671 of the Revised Administrative Code which
enumerates the officers and employees constituting the unclassified
service, teaching in a public school is in the classified service—a
public function which may be performed, by Filipino citizens only. An
applicant for admission to examination for entrance into the civil
service must be a citizen of the Philippines (section 675 of the
Revised Administrative Code). And after he had qualified himself to be
eligible for appointment to a civil service position and had been
appointed to such position, he must continue to be such citizen. A
voluntary change of citizenship or a change thereof by operation of law
disqualifies him to continue holding tho civil service, position to
which he had qualified and had been appointed. Such being the case,
upon the appellee’s marriage on 10 August 1957 to Ng Foo alias
Pio Chet Yee, a Chinese citizen, the appellee ceased to be a citizen of
the Philippines, and for that reason she is no longer qualified to
continue holding the civil service position to which she had qualified
and had been appointed.

Section 681 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that—

In making selection from lists of certified
eligibles furnished by the Commissioner, appointing officer shall, when
other qualifications are equal, prefer:.

First. Citizen of the Philippines.

Second. Honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and mariners of the United States,

is no argument against the limitation of holding public offices to
citizens of the Philippines. The preference provided for in the section
quoted above was operative during the period before 4 July 1946 or
before the Philippines became an independent’ nation.

In view of the conclusion arrived at, the point of exhaustion of administrative remedy need not be passed upon.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and petition denied, without pronouncement as to costs in both instances.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ,, concur.