FEDERICO MATFFCAHAS, PETITIONER, VS. THE BOARD OP REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Mangahas versus Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for the writ of mandamus filed by Federico Mangahas against the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines. Mangahas asks the Court to compel the Board to restore him to the position of temporary part-time instructor in English, from which the Board removed him without notice and without hearing. The case matters because it draws the line between two kinds of academic appointment: an appointment for cause, protected by the charter of the University, and a temporary appointment that the Board may revoke at will. The Court's answer turns on a single phrase in the letter that notified Mangahas of his appointment, and on the meaning the Court gave to the word temporary.

Procedural History

Mangahas brought the action as an original petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court, impleading the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines as respondent. There were no intermediate courts in the case. The Supreme Court decided the petition directly, denied the writ, and ordered Mangahas to pay the costs. Justice Goddard filed a dissenting opinion.

Facts

The president of the University of the Philippines recommended to the Board of Regents the appointment of Federico Mangahas as a temporary instructor, to take the place of a professor for the semester. In his recommendation, the president described Mangahas as a graduate of the University with a major in English, then doing graduate work and about to take his oral examination, and as a veteran newspaperman and columnist who was also a regular instructor in English in a private university.

On June 18, 1934, the Board of Regents approved the appointment of Mangahas as temporary part-time instructor in English at sixty pesos a month, effective upon entrance to duty and to remain in effect until the end of the examination week of the first semester of the school year 1934 to 1935. On June 19, 1934, the acting president notified Mangahas of the appointment by letter. The letter repeated the period of the appointment, but added the clause that it was to remain in effect until that date unless sooner revoked by the Board. Mangahas accepted the appointment and entered upon his duties.

On July 11, 1934, while Mangahas was discharging his duties and without notice or hearing, the Board of Regents revoked his appointment effective the following day. The Board acted on its earlier standing resolution that no employment incompatible with the official duties of members of the faculty shall be permitted, and it found that Mangahas's connection with a local daily as a regular columnist was incompatible with his duties in the University. Mangahas then petitioned for mandamus, contending that the revocation was without authority of law and violated the charter of the University.

Issues

• Whether or not the Board of Regents could revoke the appointment of Mangahas without cause, without investigation, and without hearing, notwithstanding the provision of the University charter requiring removal for cause after investigation and hearing.
• Whether or not Mangahas made a clear showing of a substantial right violated, such that the writ of mandamus should issue.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, paragraph (e) of Act Number 1870, as amended by Act Number 2759, the charter of the University of the Philippines, provides:

To appoint, on the recommendation of the president of the University, professors, instructors, lecturers, and other employees of the University, to fix their compensation, hours of service, and such other duties and conditions as it may deem proper, to apply to them in its discretion the Leave Law, any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have been had.

This is the provision on which Mangahas relied, and the whole case turns on whether his appointment fell within its protection.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the charter did not protect this appointment. The Court said that if the facts fell within the statutory requirement, there was no doubt that mandamus would be the proper remedy. But Mangahas accepted the appointment as notified to him by the president, with the express understanding that it should run for the period specified in the letter of June 19, 1934, unless sooner revoked by the Board. The Court held that such a right of revocation was reserved, and that this was indicated further by the expression temporary part-time instructor. The word temporary, which appears both in the resolution of the Board and in the letter of the president, must be given some meaning and effect, and the Court accepted the interpretation given to it by the president in the clause unless sooner revoked by the Board. The Court noted that the president is himself a member of the Board of Regents and presumably familiar with its policies and practices. It concluded that it had no authority to interfere with the discretion of the Board in making appointments of temporary instructors revocable at any time, and in taking this particular class of appointments out of the provisions of the charter.

The Court added that it was not for it to question the wisdom or propriety of the Board's action. However illogical and unjust it may have seemed that the Board on July 11, 1934 found the outside employment incompatible, whereas on June 18, 1934 it had apparently accepted that employment as one of the qualifications for the appointment, the Court could do no more than hold the petitioner to the conditions of the appointment which he accepted.

On the second issue, the Court held that a petitioner for mandamus must make a clear showing that he has a substantial right which has been violated. Mangahas failed to do so.

Doctrine

Mandamus lies only upon a clear showing of a substantial right that has been violated. Where the University of the Philippines appoints a person as a temporary instructor on terms expressly reserving to the Board of Regents the power to revoke the appointment sooner, the appointment is revocable at will, and the charter requirement of removal for cause after investigation and hearing does not apply to that class of appointment. The word temporary in the appointment must be given meaning and effect, and the appointee is held to the conditions of the appointment he accepted, however harsh the result. Courts will not interfere with the discretion of the Board of Regents in fixing the terms of temporary appointments, nor inquire into the wisdom or propriety of a revocation made in accordance with those terms.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, with costs against Mangahas, so the Board of Regents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a temporary appointment accepted on the express condition that it may be revoked sooner is revocable at will, and the charter guarantee of removal only for cause after investigation and hearing does not reach it. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of mandamus, the clear legal right requirement, and the distinction between temporary and permanent appointments in the University of the Philippines.