MAGDALENA RAMO, NARCISO ALBARRACIN, ANTONIO DUMLAO AND NORMA RICAFORT, PETITIONERS, VS. INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO AND HON. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BR…

On August 30, 1978,
the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered a
decision in Civil Case No. 5643, with the following judgment:

“1.  Declaring Resolution Nos. 18 and 19 (Series of
1976) of the Board of Trustees of the Leyte State
College, passed on November 16, 1976 as null and void;

“2. Ordering
respondents Magdalena Ramo, Narciso
Albarracin, and Antonio Dumlao
acting as a duly constituted Board of Trustees of the Leyte
State College, to revoke and nullify the appointment of their co-respondent
Norma Ricafort as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College
and to appoint petitioner herein to the said position pursuant to the provision
of Section 15 of P.D. 944;

“3. Ordering
respondent Norma Ricafort to immediately vacate the
position of Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte
State College and to relinquish the said office to petitioner herein;

“4. Ordering respondents
Magdalena Ramo, Narciso Albarracin, and Antonio Dumlao
acting as themselves as the Board of Trustees of the Leyte
State College to convene in session for the purpose of appropriating funds for
the payment of salaries due petitioner as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College from December 27, 1976 until she is
reappointed to her lawful office as Dean;

“5.  Ordering the respondents to pay the costs.”

The respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals but
that court, upon motion of the appellee and with the
concurrence of the appellants, transferred the case to Us
on the ground that only questions of law are raised and that the facts of the
case are not in question.

We accepted the transfer and since appeal briefs had not yet been
filed, the appellants were required to file a petition for review on certiorari
pursuant to R.A. No. 5440, which they did.

The second amended petition filed in the trial court on December 7, 1977, is for mandamus
and quo warranto with damages.  The petitioner is Inocencia
Elefaño and the respondents are Magdalena Ramo of the Leyte State College; Narciso Albarracin and Antonio Dumlao both officers of the then Department of Education
and Culture; and Norma Ricafort whose title to an
office is questioned.

The facts as stated by
the trial court are:

“Dr. Inocencia Elefaño,
53, single and a resident of 32 Arellano Street,
Tacloban City,
the petitioner in the above-entitled case, has been with the Leyte Normal School
for 29 years.  She obtained her Ele­mentary
Teacher’s Certificate (E.T.C.) at the Leyte Normal School
(now Leyte State College) in 1946.  After graduating as elementary school teacher
she taught at the Leyte
Normal School from 1948 to
1950.  She continued her studies at the Saint
Paul College (now Divine
Word University)
and obtained from that school her Bachelor of Science in Education (B.S.E.) in
1950.  In that year until 1955 when she
went abroad she was a critic teacher at the Leyte Normal School.  In 1955 she won a Fulbright Scholarship which
enabled her to go abroad and worked for her Master’s Degree in Education.  She studied at Miami
University, Oxford,
Ohio. 
After completing her master’s degree in education in 1956, she returned
to the Philippines
and served as instructor in the college department of the Leyte Normal School.  In 1963 she was promoted as curriculum
coordinator of the school.  In 1967 she
again won a university fellowship
from Rutgers State
University in New Bruswick, New Jersey,
which enabled her to complete her doctorate degree in education (Ed. D.).  On August
1, 1970, she was promoted and was appointed Dean of the Graduate
Studies of the Leyte
Normal School.

“On October 23, 1974,
in recognition of her knowledge and expertise in the area of curriculum
development, Director Bernardo F. Ople of the
National Manpower and Youth
Council (NMYC) wrote a letter to Director Liceria B. Soriano of the Bureau of Public Schools requesting for
detail of the petitioner to the NMYC for two years.  The letter of Director Ople
was referred to then Superintendent Obdulia R. Cinco of the Leyte Normal School
for comment and the latter approved the request provided that petitioner would
agree to go on leave for one year without pay from the school.  The petitioner agreed to the condition
imposed by Superintendent Cinco and was accordingly
granted a leave of absence without pay for one year effective February 1, 1975.  She was assigned and worked as NMYC
consultant on curriculum development.

“On January 5, 1976, or 27 days before the expiration of her one-year leave of absence, Dr. Inocencia Elefaño wrote the
Regional Director of the Department of Education
and Culture for Eastern Visayas (Region 8), thru Superintendent Obdulia
R. Cinco of the Leyte
Normal School, requesting for extension of her leave of absence without pay for
another year, such extension having been necessitated by the need to complete
the task which she was requested to perform for the NMYC, a non-formal
vocational preparation for out-of-school youth. 
Mrs. Cinco (now City Mayor of Tacloban) forwarded
this letter-request of extension of leave to Regional Director Pedro Esperat on January
30, 1976,
recommending approval (Exh. I).  On February 23, 1976, by indorsement,
Director Esperat returned the letter-request to
Superintendent Obdulia R. Cinco
without action.  The indorse­ment
reads –

‘Respectfully returned to the Normal School
Superintendent, Leyte Normal School, Tacloban City,
without action.

Miss INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO, Dean, Graduate Studies, of that school
should have been advised to return to duty on or before February 1, 1976. 
Attention is invited to Section 33, Rule XVI of the Civil Service Law and Rules, which contain, among others,
‘No employee should go on leave for more than one (1) year without pay.’ ‘

“On March 15, 1976,
Superintendent Cinco returned to Dr. Inocencia Elefaño her
letter-request for extension of leave. 
The Indorsement of Mrs. Cinco
reads –

‘Respectfully returned to Miss INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO, Dean, Graduate
Studies, Leyte Normal School, Tacloban
City, inviting atten­tion to the preceding 2nd Indorsement
dated February 23, 1976 of the Regional Director, DEC, Regional Office No. VIII, Tacloban City, for
her information and compliance.’

“On April 1, 1976,
Regional Director Pedro B. Esperat of the DEC, Region
8, Tacloban
City, wrote this indorsement (Exh. E):

‘Respectfully forwarded to the Honorable, the Secretary of
Education and Culture, Manila, recommending approval on the request of Dr. Inocencia Elefaño, Dean of
Graduate Studies, Leyte Normal School, Tacloban City, for another year extension of her leave
without pay effective January 31, 1976, in view of the representations made
concerning the unfinished two-year project of the National Manpower Skills
Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig,
Rizal, in which she is the consultant.  Dr. Elefaño has been advised to return to duty on or
before February 1, 1976, in an indorsement of this office to the
Superintendent of Leyte Normal School, dated February
23, 1976.’

“On April 26, 1976, Vedasto G.
Suarez, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Culture,
indorsed said request for extension of leave with his corresponding recommendation for approval thereof to the
Presidential Assistant in Malacañang, Manila, Exh. ‘F’, which request was in turn indorsed to the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission for comment by Presidential Staff
Director Fernando C. Santico, Exh.
‘G’.

“In the meantime, on June
14, 1976, the President of the Philippines
issued Presidential Decree No. 944 converting the Leyte Normal School
into the Leyte State College.  Some of the pertinent provisions thereof are
as follows:

‘SEC. 6.  The Board
of Trustees shall exercise for each College all the powers of a corporation as
provided in Section thirteen of Act Numbered Fourteen Hundred and Fifty-Nine,
as amended.  In addition to its general
powers of administration, it shall also have the following powers and duties:

xxx.

d) To appoint a
college secretary, deans, and heads of departments, lecturers and employees of
each College; x x x.

xxx.

SEC. 15. 
In order not to interrupt the smooth functioning of said normal schools
and teachers College, the present faculty members as well as all the other
personnel thereof that are recommended by the President of the College, shall
be reappointed to their respective State Colleges.  Salaries of these personnel shall be adjusted
at the discretion of the Board of
Trustees within the amount available for appropriation.’

“On August 2, 1976,
Administrative Assistant Salvador Efren of the Leyte State College wrote Dr. Inocencia
Elefaño informing her that her leave of absence
expired on January 31, 1976
and requested her ‘to return to duty
immediately in accordance with Civil Service Rules.’ (Exh.
4)

“Desiring to avail of the right to reappointment to her
position in the Leyte State College as provided for
in Sec. 15 of PD 944, the petitioner, on October 21, 1976, wrote Mrs. Magdalena
Ramo, then Officer-in-Charge of the Leyte State College, one of the respondents in this case,
requesting said respondent to include
her in the academic ranking of the faculty of the newly chartered college (Exh. I). 
The letter reads –

‘This is to request that I be included in the academic ranking of
the faculty in the newly chartered Leyte State
College.  Attached is
my Curriculum Vitae with supporting papers.

In response to verbal inquiries on your part about the extension of
my leave, apparently the communication about it has not yet been returned by
the Civil Service Commission.  Based,
however, on the indorsements of the Superintendent of
the Leyte Normal School, the Director of the Regional
Office, and the Secretary of the Department of Education and Culture, xeroxed copies of which has been furnished your Office, my
leave is approved up to January 31, 1977. 
I expect to return nevertheless earlier than that date.’

“Respondent Magdalena S. Ramo did
not act on this request of the petitioner for academic ranking in the newly
created Leyte State College.

“On November
10, 1976, Mrs. Ramo wrote the Regional Director of the Civil Service
Commission in Tacloban City requesting for legal opinion and action on
the case of petitioner Inocencia Elefaño
who had exceeded the limit of her leave of absence (Exh.
12).  The letter
reads –

‘I have the honor to request comment, decision, and action on the
case of Dr. Inocencia Elefaño
who has exceeded the limit of her leave of absence as provided in the Civil
Service Law and Rules, Section 33, Rule XVI.

Dr. Inocencia Elefaño
was granted a leave of absence without pay from February 1, 1975 to January 31, 1976. 
In spite of a communication to her by way of a 2nd Indorsement
dated March 15, 1976 made
by Mrs. Obdulia R. Cinco,
then Superintendent of the Leyte
Normal School, and again by a
letter of our Administrative Assistant dated August 2, 1976, no compliance to these mentioned
communications has been done by subject employee.

She has not submitted nor have we received any formal document
showing final approval to extend her leave of absence.  Dr. Elefaño has far
exceeded the limit of the leave of absence granted with authority, and in the
interim she worked at the Office of Vocational Preparation, NMYC, National
Manpower and Skills Center,
Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Rizal.

Certified true copies of all communications in our possession
relevant to this matter are herewith attached for ready reference.’

“On November 15,
1976, Regional Director Teodoro D. Cañete of the Civil Service Commission rendered the
following legal opinion on the Elefaño case:

‘Respectfully returned to Mrs. Magdalena Ramo,
Officer-in-Charge, Leyte State College, Tacloban City, the within basic communication, inviting
attention to Section 33, Rule XVI of the Civil Service Rules, which provision
we quote as follows:

‘Sec. 33. 
Under no circumstances shall leave without pay be
granted for more than one year.  If an
employee who is on leave without pay for any reason fails to return to duty at
the expiration of one year from the effective date of such leave, he shall be considered
automatically separated from the service; Provided, That he shall, within a
reasonable time before the expiration of his one year leave of absence without
pay, be notified in writing of the expi­ration thereof with a warning that if
he fails to report for duty on said date he will be dropped from the
service.’

Dr. Inocencia Elefaño
claims that her request for extension of leave of absence without pay has been
approved by proper authorities.  However,
a perusal of the attached series of
correspondence does not show any official communication approving such leave.

In view thereof, this
Office is of the opinion that the aforementioned provision shall govern the
case of Dr. Elefaño.’

“On November 16,
1976, the Board of Trustees of the Leyte
State College convened in Manila.  Among the matters taken up in the meeting
were the case of Dr. Elefaño who had exceeded the
limit of her leave of absence and the filling up of the position of Dean of
Graduate Studies deemed vacated by Dr. Elefaño’s
‘abandonment’ of the position by Norma Ricafort.  Relying on Sec. 33, Rule XVI of the Civil
Service Rules, and the opinion of the Regional Director of Civil Service
Commission for Eastern Visayas, the Board of Trustees
on the same date passed Resolution No. 18, Series of 1976, ‘dropping Dr. Inocencia Elefaño from the
service of the Leyte State College for having failed
to return to duty after the expiration of her one year leave of absence.’ (Exh. J for the
Petitioner and Exh. 14 for
the respondent).  At the same
meeting, the Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 19 (1976) appointing Norma
Ricafort as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College.

“On December 27,
1976, unaware of the action of the Board of Trustees of the Leyte State College dropping her from the faculty, the
petitioner wrote OIC Magdalena Ramo seeking
reinstatement to her position as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College (Exh. K and 16).

“On December 29,
1976, the petitioner went to see respondent Magdalena Ramo on her request for reinstatement.  In that meeting Ramo
told her that she had already been
dropped from the service of the college by the Board of Trustees and that she
will receive a letter to that effect.  At
3
o’clock in the
afternoon of December 29 the petitioner received from Mrs. Ramo
a letter quoting Resolution No. 18 of the Board of Trustees dropping her from
the service of the college.

“On January 3, 1977,
the petitioner wrote the Board of Trustees of the Leyte
State College praying for reconsi­deration of its Resolution No. 18 dropping
her from the faculty list of the college (Exh. M and 17).

“On January 20, 1977,
Commissioner Jose A.R. Melo of the Civil Service
Commission, by indorsement, wrote the Secretary of
Education and Culture on the Elefaño case.  The indorsement
(Exh. H) reads –

‘Respectfully returned thru the Presidential Staff Director, Malacañang, Manila, to the Honorable the Secretary of
Education and Culture, Manila, the within request of Dr. Inocencia
Elefaño, Dean of Graduate Studies, Leyte Normal School, for another year extension of her
leave of absence without pay effective January 31, 1976.

Considering Section 33 of the Civil Service Rule XVI that ‘Under no
circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for
more than one year,’ she may not be allowed to extend her leave beyond one (1)
year.  In view, however, of the
representations made that the services of Dr. Elefaño
as Consultant were urgently needed to finish the two year project at the
National Manpower and Youth Council aside from the fact that the original
request was really for the detail of Dr. Elefaño and
considering further that she actually rendered service continuously as
Consultant at the said office after the expiration of her one-year leave
without pay, such period of her stay at the National Manpower and Youth Council
is hereby considered a detail.’

“On February 10, 1977,
Mr. Ricardo Elefaño brother of the petitioner,
appeared at the 4th board meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Leyte State College and argued for reinstatement of his
sister to her position as Dean of Graduate Studies of the college.  The minutes of the board meeting on that date
(Exh. N-1) reads –

‘Upon proper representation with the Board of Trustees of Leyte State College, the brother of Dr. Elefaño
was allowed to sit during the meeting to clarify points on the side of his
sister, Dr. Inocencia Elefaño,
who was dropped from the service by virtue of Board Resolution No. 4, s. 1976
and who appealed for reconsideration of the decision of the Board of Trustees.

Making use of the series of communications and other pertinent
papers he had with him, Mr. Elefaño presented point
by point why his sister should not have been dropped from the service as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College.

The Chairman answered Mr. Elefaño point
by point and after the lengthy discussion on all sides of the case the Chairman
suggested to bring back to the attention of the Civil Service Commission the
matter inasmuch as it is distinctly governed by its rules which in character
are self-acting.  He further stated that
if on the other hand the decision made earlier by the Board in Resolution No.
18, s. 1976 is illegal then there is no recourse but for it to be a court
case.  But it is certain, the Chairman
explained, that the Board acted on the basis of the records provided.  If it is alleged that there is any record
that shows there was an approval of such extension of leave or detail, it is
rather too late.  It may be pointed out that
a recommendation for approval cannot be construed as synonymous with approval.

The Chairman asked the Officer-in-Charge of the Leyte
State College about the present status of the position of Dean of Graduate
Studies, and the Officer in Charge reported that by virtue of Board Resolution
No. 19, s. 1976, Dr. Norma Ricafort was appointed to the position vice Dr. Inocencia
Elefaño.  The
Chairman thereafter emphasized that the Board cannot rescind its Resolution and
that it sustains its position. 
Otherwise, the party concerned will rise to protest since her appoint­ment
has already been effected.

Finally, the Chairman promised Mr. Elefaño
that he will see Chairman Clave and Commissioner Melo
about the matter and advised Mr. Elefaño that he may
pursue his legal thought.  Mr. Elefaño thanked the Board of Trustees for allowing him the
privilege to explain the side of his sister.’

“On March 16, 1977,
in reply to the letter for reconsideration of Dr. Elefaño,
Undersecretary Narciso Albarracin
wrote Dr. Elefaño denying her plea for
reconsideration of Resolution No. 18 (Exh. N) which reads –

‘This has reference to your letter dated January 3, 1977 appealing for a consideration of
the resolution of the Board of Trustees dropping you from the service of the Leyte State College for failure to return to duty after the
expiration of your one year leave of absence without pay.

In reply please be informed that in its meeting held on February 10, 1977 where your brother
Mr. Ricardo Elefaño was present, the Board
deliberated on the matter lengthily. 
However, in the absence of additional evidences that would warrant a
review of such action, the Board of Trustees of the College could not alter its
decision embodied under Resolution No. 18, s. 1976, copy attached.  Also attached for your information is the excerpts of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board
when your appeal was discussed.

It may be mentioned in this connection that the position of Dean of
Graduate School in the Leyte State College is already
occupied by a certain Dr. Norma Ricafort.’

“On March 21, 1977
and March 25, 1977, the
petitioner wrote letters to the Secretary of Education and Culture and
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, respectively, appealing the decision of the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees (Exhs. O and P).

“On May 18, 1977,
Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, by indorsement, referred Dr. Elefaño’s
letter of appeal to the Secretary of Education and Culture for comment, (Exh. Q). 
This communication was in turn indorsed to the Coordinator of
State Colleges and Universities of the DEC, the Hon. Antonio G. Dumlao (Exh. Q-1).
 On June 17, 1977, Director Dumlao
referred the said communication to respondent Magdalena Ramo
for comment and/or answer (Exh. Q-2).
Mrs. Ramo filed her answer but there has been no
resolution on the appeal.

“On August 23, 1977,
by reason of the failure of the Board of Trustees or Secretary of Education and
Culture to act on her appeal, the petitioner wrote Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora requesting for the early or speedy reso­lution
of her case (Exh. R).  This was referred to the Secre­tary of
Education and Culture on September 9,
1977 (Exh. R-1).  DEC Secretary Juan L. Manuel in turn indorsed
the letter of Dr. Elefaño to the Chairman of the
Board of Trustees on September 20,
1977 (Exh. R-2).

“Until now there has been no resolution on the appeal of the
petitioner for reinstatement.  Finding no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to
protect her rights, the petitioner filed this case on November 15, 1977, as above stated.”

The petitioners assert that –

“1.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN:

‘1.   Declaring Resolution Nos. 18 and 19 (series
of 1976) of the Board of Trustees of the Leyte State
College, passed on November 16, 1976 as null and void;

‘2.   Ordering respondents Magdalena Ramo, Narciso Albarracin,
and Antonio Dumlao acting as a duly constituted Board
of Trustees of the Leyte State College, to revoke and
nullify the appointment of their co-respondent Norma Ricafort
as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State
College and to appoint petitioner herein to the said position pursuant to the
provision of Section 15 of P. D. 944;

‘3.   Ordering respondent Norma Ricafort
to immediately vacate the position of Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte State College and to relinquish the said office to
petitioner herein;

‘4.   Ordering respondents Magdalena Ramo, Narciso Albarracin
and Antonio Dumlao constituting themselves as the
Board of Trustees of the Leyte State College to
convene in session for the purpose of appropriating funds for the payment of
salaries due petitioner as Dean of Graduate Studies of the Leyte
State College from December 27, 1976 until she is reappointed to her lawful
office as Dean; because –

‘(a)    There was no position to which respondent Elefaño could be reappointed to as the same had ceased to
exist upon the effectivity of Presidential Decree
944, June 14, 1976, creating the new corporate entity, the LEYTE STATE COLLEGE
and thereby, abolishing the Leyte Normal School;

‘(b)    The deanship of the Graduate Studies of the
LEYTE STATE COLLEGE is a new position, and the respondent Elefaño
does not have any existing appointment thereto;

‘(c)    P.D. No. 944 vested discretion of appointment
on the Board of Trustees of the LEYTE STATE COLLEGE, limiting the same,
however, only to old faculty members of the LEYTE NORMAL SCHOOL who were
‘recommended by the President of the
College x x x,’ and the respondent Elefaño does not even pretend that she was so recommended.’

BECAUSE PD 944, June 14, 1976, HAD ABOLISHED THE LEYTE
NORMAL SCHOOL, AS WELL AS ALL POSITIONS THEREIN, INCLUDING THAT OF DEAN OF
GRADUATE STUDIES AND CONSEQUENTLY,
THERE WAS NO POSITION TO WHICH RESPONDENT INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO COULD BE
REAPPOINTED OR RETURNED TO.

“2.  ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT ELEFAÑO’S OLD
POSITION SUBSISTS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT SAID RES­PONDENT
ABANDONED THE SAME.

“3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
RESPONDENT ELEFAÑO HAD NOT EXHAUSTED AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE
COMING TO COURT.”

The trial court has observed: 
“Actually, the case hinges on the single issue of whether or not
the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned her position by continuing to work
for the National Manpower and Youth Council after February 1, 1976, when her one-year leave of absence
expired.” We agree and on this issue alone we have to reverse the decision
of the court a quo.

Section 33, Rule XVI of
the Civil Service Rules provides:

“Sec. 33.  Under no circumstances shall leave without pay
be granted for more than one year.  If an employee who is on leave without pay
for any reason fails to return to duty at the expiration of one year from the
effective date of such leave, he shall be considered automatically separated
from the service; Provided, that he shall, within a reasonable time before the
expiration of his one year leave of absence without pay, be notified in writing
of the expiration thereof and with a warning that if he fails to report for
duty on said date, he will be dropped from the service.”

The one-year leave of absence without pay of Inocencia
Elefaño expired on January 31, 1976, and there is no question that she did
not return to her position within a reasonable time thereafter.

It is true that on January 5, 1976 (or 27 days before her
one-year leave expired) she requested an extension of her leave of absence
without pay for another year, but Regional Director Pedro Esperat
took no action thereon and instead said: 
“Miss INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO, Dean, Graduate Studies, of that school
should have been advised to return to duty on or before February 1, 1976.  Attention is invited to Section 33, Rule XVI
of the Civil Service Law and Rules, which contain, among others, ‘No employee
should go on leave for more than one (1) year without pay.'” This was
communicated by Superintendent Cinco to Inocencia Elefaño on March 15, 1976, “for her
information and compliance.” Still Elefaño
failed to return to her position.  True
she continued to exert efforts for the extension of her leave of absence
without pay but they were of no avail.

On August 2, 1976, after the Leyte
Normal School had been converted into the Leyte State
College, Elefaño was asked by the Administrative
Assistant of the College “to return to duty imme­diately in accordance
with Civil Service Law and Rules” but Elefaño
still failed to return claiming that her leave was approved up to January 31,
1977, but there is no proof of such approval. 
What appears on record is Exhibit E, supra, wherein Regional
Director Esperat early in April, 1976, merely
recommended approval of Elefaño’s leave without pay
for another year while stating that, “Dr. Elefaño
has been advised to return to duty on or before February 1, 1976, in an indorsement of this office to the Superintendent of Leyte Normal School, dated February 23, 1976.” In
point of fact the recommendation could not have been approved because of the
unqualified prohibition contained in Sec. 33, Rule XVI of the Civil Service
Rules, namely:  “Under no
circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for
more than one year.”

In the light of the foregoing, We are not prepared to state that
the Board of Trustees of Leyte State College acted
unreasonably and illegally in adopting Resolution No. 18, series of 1976,
“dropping Dr. Inocencia Elefaño
from the service of the Leyte State College for
having failed to return to duty after the expiration of her one year leave of
absence.” Much less can We sustain the judgment of the lower court
ordering the Board of Trustees of the Leyte State
College to nullify the appointment of Norma Ricafort
and appoint instead Inocencia Elefaño;
ordering Norma Ricafort to vacate her position and
relinquish it to Inocencia Elefaño;
and ordering the Board of Trustees to appropriate the back salaries of Inocencia Elefaño because Elefaño has not shown a clear legal right so as to entitle
her to such orders.  Even if we assume
for the sake of argument that Elefaño had not
abandoned her position she is not entitled to such orders because she has
neither been recommended by the President of the College nor reappointed to the
position of Dean of Graduate Studies by the Board of Trustees.  Sec. 15 of P. D. No. 944 states:

“Sec. 15.  In order not to interrupt the smooth
functioning of said normal schools and teachers college, the present faculty members as
well as all the other personnel thereof that are recommended by the President of the
College, shall be reappointed to their respective State Colleges.  Salaries of these personnel shall be adjusted at the discretion
of the Board of Trustees within the amount available for appropriation.”

The letter of Civil Service Commissioner Melo,
Exhibit H quoted above, is of no avail to Elefaño.  It was written on January 20, 1977, or more
than two months from November 16,
1976, when Elefaño was no longer in the
service.  It had become functus oficio and
moreover was not congruent with the factual situation because contrary to the
concept of detail Elefaño was receiving salary not
from her parent office but from the National Manpower and Youth Council.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be well
taken, the decision of the court a quo is reversed and the
petition filed therein is dismissed.  No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Fernandez, JJ., concur.