GR L 12694; (June, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12694; June 30, 1960
JOSE MONTERO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. GUIDO D. CASTELLANES, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioners Jose Montero, Melecio Gayondato, and Pablo Sorposa, who were non-civil service eligibles, were appointed as temporary policemen of the Municipality of Calatrava, Negros Occidental, by respondent Mayor Guido D. Castellanes on December 30, 1955, and took their oath the following day. On January 6, 1956, the Assistant Executive Secretary, upon receipt of a telegram from the respondent mayor recalling these appointments, returned the appointment papers without taking action. The petitioners were separated from the service on January 16, 1956, and were replaced by other temporary appointees who were also non-eligibles. The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to compel the mayor to reinstate them with back salary and damages, alleging their dismissal violated Republic Act No. 557 . The lower court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners, as non-civil service eligibles holding temporary appointments, have a clear legal right to reinstatement via mandamus, protected under Republic Act No. 557 , after their appointments were recalled and terminated by the appointing power.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners’ appointments were temporary in character and, as non-civil service eligibles, they had no fixed tenure. A temporary appointment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power without a need to show cause. Consequently, the petitioners did not come under the protection of Republic Act No. 557 . Furthermore, their temporary appointments had been recalled by the appointing officer and were never approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service as required by the Revised Administrative Code. Thus, they had no lawful appointment and could only be considered de facto officers acting under color of appointment, with no clear legal right to the positions enforceable by mandamus. The replacement of the petitioners with other temporary non-eligible appointees was not prohibited.