G.R. No. L-14908; October 31, 1963
SINFORIANO V. URGELIO, JOSE V. ENCABO, and JORGE M. VILLARIN, petitioners-appellants, vs. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CEBU CITY, THE CITY OF CEBU, RAMON DUTERTE, CASIMERO V. MADARANG, CARLOS J. GUIZON, OSMUNDO G. PAMA, FLORENCIO S. UROT, CEFERINA U. DEL ROSARIO, GENEROSO JACA, CECILIO DE LA VICTORIA, JOAQUIN L. PANIS, PEDRO B. CLAVANO, THE CITY TREASURER, and THE CITY AUDITOR OF CEBU CITY, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners-appellants Jose V. Encabo and Jorge Villarin, along with Sinforiano V. Urgelio, were permanent employees in the Cebu City Mayor’s office, performing clerical duties and covered by the GSIS. On January 5, 1956, the Municipal Board of Cebu City passed a resolution creating thirty-five new positions in the Mayor’s office. Subsequently, on February 10, 1956, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 192, which abolished several positions, including those held by the petitioners. They received termination notices effective March 15, 1956.
The petitioners protested their termination to the Civil Service Commission and the Executive Secretary but received no reply. They subsequently filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement, back salaries, and damages. They argued that the abolition of their positions was done in bad faith, intended to remove them in violation of their security of tenure. The lower court dismissed their petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the abolition of the petitioners’ positions through Ordinance No. 192 was done in good faith and is thus valid, or whether it was a colorable abolition executed in bad faith to circumvent their constitutional right to security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling the abolition void. While the Municipal Board possessed the legislative power to create and abolish positions not provided for in the City Charter, this power must be exercised in good faith for genuine reasons such as economy or efficiency. An abolition made in bad faith, as a subterfuge to remove civil service eligibles, is unconstitutional.
The Court found the abolition to be colorable and in bad faith. The stated reason of economy was contradicted by the fact that, just over a month before the abolition, the Board created 35 new positions. Furthermore, after the petitioners’ positions were abolished, sixteen additional positions were created, and salary increases for other employees in the same office were provided. The duties previously performed by the petitioners continued to be performed by other employees, proving their services were still needed. The ordinance was a mere device to illegally terminate the petitioners. Consequently, the Court ordered their reinstatement to their former or equivalent positions, payment of back salaries (minus interim earnings), and attorney’s fees.