CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATOR AND JOSE ESPINA, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, VALENTIN ABAD (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY JOY, JOHN, …

This is a petition to review the decision^[1] of
the Intermediate Appellate Court dated November 25, 1983, in AC-G.R. No.
55078-R, which affirmed the decision dated January 15, 1974 of the then Court
of First Instance of Cebu in Civil Case No. R-13115 ordering the reinstatement
or reappointment of Valentin Abad as security guard of herein petitioner Civil
Aeronautics Administration and payment of damages, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of the petitioner and against the respondents:

1.     
Ordering the immediate reappointment or reinstatement of the
petitioner as supervising security guard of respondent Civil Aeronautics
Administration;

2. Ordering the respondents to pay petitioner
the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), as moral damages, TWO THOUSAND
AND TWENTY THREE PESOS (P2,023.00), as actual damages, ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00), as attorney’s fees, and the costs of this actions.

SO ORDERED.”

Hence, this appeal.

Inasmuch as private respondent Valentin Abad has already died,
the decision sought to be reviewed with respect to the latter’s reinstatement
has become moot and academic. Hence,
the only matter left to be reviewed is the award of damages.

As borne out from the records, the facts of the case are as
follows:

Private respondent Valentin Abad, a civil service eligible,
having passed the Patrolmen’s Examination was appointed as a security guard in
the Civil Aeronautics Administration at Mactan on July 1, 1968. Under the terms of the appointment, the
employment of Abad was only for a period of one month or up to July 31, 1968.^[2] However, Abad was reinstated on November 18,
1968 as a Special Police Officer in the Civil Aeronautics Administration and
his appointment was up to December 31, 1968.^[3] In the year 1969, Abad was extended
plantilla appointments covering the months of January, February and March^[4]
and July 1 to December 31, 1969.^[5] In January 1970, Abad was again extended
another appointment for one (1) month.^[6]
Continuously from July 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971, Abad’s employment was
under authority of a temporary appointment which was extended to him monthly
until his services were terminated on January 1, 1972.

Petitioner claims that Valentin Abad was not dismissed but that
his temporary appointment merely lapsed.

We agree with the decisions of both the trial and the appellate
court.

The following are the pertinent civil service rules:

“Qualifications in an appropriate examination is required for
appointment to positions in the competitive or classified service, except as
otherwise provided by the Civil Service Law.”^[7]

“Employees shall be selected on the basis of fitness, determined by
the appointing authority to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities
of the positions whether in the competitive or in the non-competitive Service,
as well as on the basis of merit as provided in this Act.”^[8]

“Qualifications in an appropriate examination shall be required for
appointment to positions in the competitive service in accordance with the
Civil Service rules, except as otherwise provided in this Act; Provided, that
all those who successfully pass the examination shall be equally qualified for
such appointment: Provided, further,
that whenever there is a Civil service eligible actually available for
appointment, no person who is not such eligible shall be appointed even in a
temporary capacity to any vacant position in the competitive service in the
government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation, except when
the immediate filing of the vacancy is urgently required in the public
interest, or when the vacancy is not permanent, in which cases temporary
appointments of non-eligibles may be made in the absence of eligibles actually
and immediately available”^[9] …
(Emphasis supplied)

The security of tenure of an employee was defined in the case of Pielago
vs. Echavez^[10]
which states:

“Under Section 23 of the Civil Service Act, a non-eligible
appointee who has already more than five years of service to his credit, even
though his appointment be of temporary character, acquires a right to
continue holding his position upon the fulfillment of the following three
conditions, namely, (1) he must have been given a qualifying examination within
one year from said approval of the law, (2) he either failed in said
examination or failed or refused to take it, and (3) he could be replaced only
by one who has the requisite or appropriate civil service eligibility.

Thus, the mantle of protection against arbitrary dismissals is
accorded to an employee even if he is a non-eligible and holds a temporary
appointment.

The dismissal of Abad was undoubtedly malicious and
arbitrary. As testified to by Jeremias
Dekit, one of the two witnesses for the petitioner, the services of Messrs.
Ranara, Duenas, Ymbong, Mahusay and Canete, who were not civil service eligibles,
were not terminated.^[11]

Of the 27 employees in the security unit of petitioner CAA at
Mactan, only respondent and four others possessed appropriate civil service
eligibilities. Yet, his services were
terminated on January 1, 1972, along with two other employees who did not
possess appropriate civil service eligibilities. Worst, the two others whose services were terminated along with
respondent’s were reappointed within the first quarter of 1972, while
respondent was not. The services of
Messrs. Garrque, Homigop, Debelleres and Cuizon, who passed only testimonial
examinations, were not terminated.

As aptly stated by the appellate court:

“x x x Surely, this is partiality. Fourthly, less-qualified co-employees were accorded subsequent
reinstatements, but appellee was not. All
those indicate that the termination of appellee’s service, despite the
temporary nature of his job, was ‘malicious, arbitrary, and without basis in
fact and in law.’ The trial court cannot therefore be faulted for its order to
have appellee reappointed or reinstated. As has been aptly said by Our Supreme Court:

‘A decent respect for the Civil Service provisions of our
Constitution dictates that civil service eligibles, like petitioners herein who
have rendered long and honorable service, should not be sacrificed in favor of
non-eligibles given positions of recent creation nor should they be left at the
mercy of political changes’ (See Briones, et al. v. Cameña, Jr., L-12536, Sept.
24, 1958).

When appellants herein insist that appellee, being a temporary
employee only, is ‘not covered by the mantle of security of tenure’ they miss
utterly the most important point in this case: if the non-eligibles had been terminated together with him, appellant
would not complain, but why ease him out only to accommodate the
non-eligibles? This is the sad travesty
besetting some parts of our bureaucracy. Above everything else, the Government must be fair and just.”^[12]

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the order
appealed herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melo, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo p. 22-24, penned by Justice Edgardo L. Paras and concurred in by
Justice Crisolito Pascual and Justice Serafin E. Camilon.

^[2]
Exhibit 1, Folder of Exhibits for Respondents, p. 1.

^[3]
Exhibit 2, Folder of Exhibits for Respondents, p. 2.

^[4]
Exhibit 23, Folder of Exhibits for Respondents, p. 23.

^[5]
Exhibit “E”, Folder of Exhibits of Petitioner, p. 6.

^[6]
Exhibit 3, Folder of Exhibits of Respondents, p. 3.

^[7]
Revised Civil Service Rules, Rule II, Sec. 1.

^[8]
Civil Service Law, Sec. 23, as amended.

^[9]
Ibid.

^[10]
No. L-26600, 33 SCRA 264, (1970).

^[11]
T.S.N., September 25, 1973, pp. 80-88.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 24.