ANTONIO VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER VS. FELIX BALALLO, RESPONDENT.

The main facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

“On November 24, 1959, 14 days after the general
elections of November 10, 1959, Inocencio Espiritu, then chief of
police of the municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur, resigned effective at
the close of office hours on that day for the reason that he wanted to
seek another job (Exh. E).

Jose Burgonio, the incumbent
mayor then on December 28, 1959, three days before his term expired on
December 31, 1959, extended an appointment to the petitioner Antonio
Villanueva as chief of police of Ilocos Sur (Exh. A). On the same date,
the provincial treasurer of Ilocos Sur as deputy of the Commissioner of
Civil Service and pursuant to the provision of Republic Act No. 2260
approved the appointment.

On December 30, 1959, the
petitioner Antonio Villanueva took his oath of office as chief of
police of Santa, Ilocos Sur before the then mayor Jose Burgonio (Exh,
1). It also appears that the appointee Antonio Villanueva is a civil
service eligible having passed the examination for patrolman
(qualifying) on October 2, 1937 with a rating of 86.5 per cent (Exh.
J).

On January 5, 1960, Jesus R. Bueno, newly elected
mayor of Santa, Ilocos Sur, at the election of November 10, 1959,
extended an appointment to Atty. Felix Balallo for the same position of
chief of police ‘vice Mr. Inocencio Espiritu, resigned’ (Exh. 2). The
record shows that Atty. Balallo is also a civil service eligible per
his application to be entered in the register of eligible pursuant to
the provisions of Republic Act No. 1080, as amended by Republic Act
1844 (Exh. 1). Before the former appointment of the petitioner Antonio
Villanueva could be finally attested by the Commissioner of Civil
Service on March 4, 1960 the Commissioner of Civil Service approved the
appointment of the respondent Atty. Felix Balallo subject to the usual
physical and medical examination and to the availability of funds, that
is, ‘provided the former incumbent Inocencio Espiritu has no more leave
with pay to his credit.

Since the appointment of the
petitioner Antonio Villanueva he has been performing his duties as
chief of police of Santa and receiving the emoluments therefor.
However, the provincial auditor has annotated in the payroll that the
payment of the petitioner’s salary is subject to reimbursement if and
when the matter is decided against him. In view of this predicament,
the Commissioner of Civil Service in his 4th indorsement dated May 13,
1960 to the provincial treasurer (Exh. 5) finally decided that the
attestation made by the provincial treasurer under section 20, Republic
Act 2260 is not final for it is subject to review by the Commissioner
of Civil Service; that the appointment made to Antonio Villanueva has
been revoked upon the appointment of Atty. Felix Balallo to the same
position. By virtue of the aforementioned indorsement (Exh. 5), Mayor
Jesus Bueno advised the petitioner Antonio Villanueva * * * to cease
rendering further service in the Police Department * * * and to return
all the property of the said department * * * to the municipal
treasurer.’ (Exh. 7).

On June 3, 1960, the petitioner filed this quo warranto
proceedings and as prayed for, the Court on June 6, 1960 issued the
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction upon the petitioner filing a
bond in the sum of P2.000.” (Record, pp. 91-93)

In due course, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur rendered
judgment sustaining the action taken by the Commissioner of Civil
Service and, accordingly, dismissing the complaint without costs, as
well as dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued by said
court on June 7, 1960. Hence, this appeal by Villanueva.

The decision appealed from is mainly based upon our rulings in Gorospe vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, 105 Phil., 129, and Cui vs. Ortiz, 107 Phil., 1000 but these cases are not in point. The first involved an employee who had been found guilty of certain irregularities and, accordingly, ordered dismissed by the Commissioner of Civil Service,
for which reason a subsequent appointment in favor of the same employee
was disapproved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, said previous
dismissal being a ground for the disapproval of the new appointment,
under Section 5 of Rule II of the Civil Service Rules, reading:

“5. The Commissioner may, in his discretion, refuse
to examine an applicant, or to certify or attest an appointment of an
eligible, who is physically unfit for the performance of the duties of
the position to which he seeks appointment; or who has been guilty
of a crime, or of infamous, notoriously disgraceful, or immoral
conduct, drunkenness, or dishonesty; or who has been dismissed from the
service for other delinquency of misconduct; or who has
intentionally made a false statement in any material fact, or practiced
or attempted to practice any deception or fraud in securing his
examination, registration, or appointment. Any of the foregoing
disqualifications shall be good cause for the removal of the person
from, the service after his appointment.”

Indeed, if the grounds for disqualification enumerated in the
foregoing provision are, likewise, grounds for removal, it follows that
the refusal of the Commissioner of Civil Service to approve the
appointment of Gorospe was fully justified, for it would serve no
useful purpose to approve the appointment and, at the same time, to
remove the appointee. Petitioner herein does not fall, however, under
any of the aforementioned disqualifications or causes for removal.

Neither is the second case controlling in the one at bar for the appointment involved in the Cui case required the approval of the President which was not secured by him.
Hence, his appointment was not completed. The appointment in the
present case did not require said approval of the President. In fact, Mayor Burgonio had applied for presidential authority to fill the vacancy resulting
from the resignation of Inocencio Espiritu as chief of police of Santa,
and the Office of the President replied stating that said “authority *
* * is not necessary.”

The issue in this case hinges on the role of the Commissioner of
Civil Service under the provisions of the Civil Service Act requiring
his attestation to appointments made in the civil service. As stated by
this Court in the Gorospe case (supra), the appointment of an employee
in the civil service “must be submitted to the Commissioner of Civil
Service for approval to determine whether the prospective appointee is qualified to hold the position”.
In the language of former Deputy Commissioner of Civil Service,
Gregorio Rasalan (in his book on the Philippine Civil Service Law, pp.
27 and 28):

“If the appointee concerned is a civil service
eligible and otherwise qualified for the position and the appointing
authority has already performed all the acts necessary to make the
appointment complete, a probational, promotional, transfer or
reinstatement appointment may not be withdrawn without the consent of
the appointee. * * *

“Pursuant to law and regulations an
appointment in the service must be submitted to the Commissioner of
Civil Service for determination whether the proposed appointee is
qualified to hold the position. * * *.”

When the appointee is qualified, as petitioner herein admittedly
is, then the Commissioner of Civil Service has no choice but to attest
to the appointment. It has been repeatedly held that an appointment
becomes complete upon the performance of the last act required by law
of the appointing power. The attestation required of the Commissioner
of Civil Service is merely a check to assure compliance with the
civil service laws. In fact, upon attestation by the provincial
treasurer the appointee may collect the corresponding salaries,
although subject to the condition that, if the Commissioner of Civil
Service should later on properly reject the appointment by reason of
lack of eligibility, as provided in said Section 5, Rule II, of the
Civil Service Rules, then the appointment shall lapse, despite the
aforementioned attestation by the provincial treasurer. This
notwithstanding, the amounts collected by the appointee, by way of
salary, prior to notice of the unfavorable action taken by the
Commissioner of Civil Service, shall be deemed validly paid to said
appointee.

This goes to show that the appointment in question is not only valid, but, also, complete prior to said notice, for, otherwise, said payment could not be deemed legally made.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and
another one shall be entered granting the writ prayed for and declaring
that petitioner Antonio Villanueva is the duly appointed and qualified
Chief of Police of the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur; that, as
such, he is legally entitled to perform the powers and duties of said
office and to receive the emoluments attached thereto; that respondent
Felix Balallo has no right to said office and, consequently, ordering
him to yield the same to the aforementioned petitioner, as well as to
refrain from obstructing or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the
discharge by the latter of the functions of said office, with costs
against said respondent. It is so ordered.

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