JUSTINO L. DAVID, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ANGEL DANCEL, CHIEF TAX REGISTRATION SECTION,REAL ESTATE DIVISION, CITY TREASURER’S OFFICE; THE CITY TREASURER, THE GUT AUDITOR, THE …

David versus Dancel

The Case

This is a petition for quo warranto — an action to oust a person from a public office to which another claims the lawful right. Justino David sued Angel Dancel in the Manila Court of First Instance, asking the court to remove Dancel from the position of Chief of the Tax Registration Section in the Real Estate Division of the City Treasurer's Office of Manila, and to declare that David himself was entitled to be appointed. The case matters because it teaches the two great lessons of quo warranto over public office: that the person suing must first establish his own clear right to the office, and that the appointing power's discretion, exercised within the civil service rules, will not be lightly overturned.

Procedural History

David filed his action for quo warranto in the Manila Court of First Instance after the Civil Service Commissioner dismissed his protest and approved Dancel's appointment. The respondents answered, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, and after trial the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the petition. From that adverse judgment, David brought the case directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

Facts

The disputed position of Chief of the Tax Registration Section became vacant in August 1961, following the death of Marcelino Cueto, Chief of the Real Estate Division. Before Cueto's death, the ranking in the division was as follows: Cueto was Chief; Manuel Lapid was Assistant Chief; Juan de Vera was Chief of the Tax Registration Section; Justino David, the petitioner, was Section Chief of Tax-Sold Property; and Angel Dancel, the respondent, was a Senior Clerk.

Upon Cueto's death, Lapid was promoted to Division Chief and de Vera moved up to Assistant Chief, leaving the position of Chief of the Tax Registration Section vacant. On August 3, 1961, the Office of the City Treasurer recommended to the then Mayor Arsenio Lacson the appointment of Dancel to the vacant position, stating that the provisions of paragraph 3 of Section 23 of Republic Act Number 2260 had been observed. The appointment was signed and sent to the Civil Service Commission. Upon learning of it, David protested, claiming that as the next in rank he was entitled to the promotion.

The Civil Service Commissioner dismissed the protest and approved Dancel's appointment, on the ground that under Executive Order Number 503, series of 1934, no promotion shall be made unless the proposed appointee has obtained an efficiency rating of not less than 85 per cent, and David's rating was only 84 per cent. David asked for reconsideration, and when no action came for five months, he filed this action on August 29, 1962.

Issues

• Whether or not David is a first grade civil service eligible, for purposes of promotion to the vacant position, under Republic Act Number 1080 as amended by Republic Act Number 1844.
• Whether or not Executive Order Number 503, series of 1934, prescribing a minimum efficiency rating of 85 per cent for promotion, was superseded by the Compilation of the Civil Service Laws and Rules.
• Whether or not David's subsequent efficiency rating of 85 per cent, obtained while the case was pending, and the new Civil Service Rules of 1963, entitled him to the promotion.
• Whether or not David may maintain an action for quo warranto against Dancel.

Applicable Provisions

The third paragraph of Section 23 of the Civil Service Act, Republic Act Number 2260, provides:

Whenever a vacancy occurs in any competitive or classified position in the government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation or entity, the officer or employee next in rank who is competent and qualified to hold the position and who possesses an appropriate civil service eligibility shall be promoted thereto; Provided, That should there be two or more persons under equal circumstances, seniority shall be given preference; and Provided, however, That should there be any special reason or reasons why such officer or employee should not be promoted, such special reason or reasons shall be stated in writing by the appointing official and the officer or employee concerned shall be informed thereof and be given an opportunity to be heard by the Commissioner of Civil Service, whose decision in such case, shall be final. If the vacancy is not filled by promotion as provided herein, then the same shall be filled by transfer of present employees in the government service, by reinstatement, by reemployment of persons separated through reduction in force, or by certification from appropriate registers of eligibles in accordance with rules promulgated in pursuance of this Act.

This is the very provision invoked by David as the next in rank, and the Court measures his claim against its requirement of an appropriate civil service eligibility.

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 1080, as amended by Republic Act Number 1844, provides:

The bar examinations and the examinations given by the various boards of examiners of the Government are declared as civil service examinations, and shall, for purposes of appointment to positions in the classified service the duties of which involve knowledge of the respective professions, except positions requiring highly specialized knowledge not covered by the ordinary board examinations, be considered as equivalent to the first grade regular examinations given by the Bureau of Civil Service if the profession requires at least four years of study in college and as equivalent to the second grade regular examinations if the profession requires less than four years of college study; Provided, however, That such bar or board examination shall be equivalent to the next lower grade of civil service examination when the person is to be employed in a position other than one requiring his professional knowledge.

This provision decides the first issue, because the first grade eligibility it grants is conditioned on the position involving knowledge of the profession.

Article 7 of the Civil Code provides:

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

This answers the second issue, because a mere compilation prepared by the Bureau of Civil Service cannot repeal an executive order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that David is only a second grade civil service eligible for the disputed position. It is not disputed that the position of Chief of the Tax Registration Section does not require professional knowledge of the law. Under Republic Act Number 1080, the first grade eligibility is subject to the condition precedent that the position involved requires professional knowledge of the applicant. The eligibility does not lapse; it simply awaits the right position, but it cannot be stretched to a position outside the profession.

On the second issue, the Court held that Executive Order Number 503 was not repealed. The Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules was prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service and could not have repealed the executive order, since under Article 7 of the Civil Code laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. At the time of his appointment, Dancel had an efficiency rating of 90 per cent against David's 84 per cent, below the required 85 per cent.

On the third issue, the Court held that the efficiency rating of an employee at the time promotion is made, and not his subsequent rating, determines his competence. The later rating of 85 per cent and the new rules of 1963 could not cure the deficiency that existed when the appointment was made.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that David cannot maintain the action. For him to question Dancel's qualification, David must first show that he himself has a right to the office, and he has shown none. The Court added that the making of an appointment involves the exercise of discretion as to who is best qualified for any competitive position in the Civil Service.

Doctrine

A petitioner in quo warranto over a public office must establish not only that the respondent is not entitled to the position, but also his own clear right to it. The first grade civil service eligibility conferred by Republic Act Number 1080 upon bar examinees is conditioned on the position involving knowledge of the profession; for any other position, the eligibility is equivalent only to the next lower grade. Such eligibility is permanent but is permanent only in relation to the position to be filled. An executive order is repealed only by a subsequent law, not by its omission from a compilation prepared by an administrative bureau. The efficiency rating at the time promotion is made, not a subsequent rating, determines the employee's competence. Finally, the appointing power exercises discretion in choosing who is best qualified for a competitive civil service position.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, dismissing David's petition for quo warranto, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that in quo warranto the petitioner must prove his own right to the office, not merely the respondent's lack of it. Examiners use this case to test the conditional first grade eligibility under Republic Act Number 1080 and the rule that only a subsequent law repeals an executive order.