G.R. No. L-11090; January 31, 1959
VICENTE E. GOROSPE, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE BUDGET COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE and THE DIRECTOR OF POSTS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Vicente E. Gorospe was employed as a letter carrier in the Bureau of Posts. On February 27, 1951, the Commissioner of Civil Service found him guilty of grave misconduct in office for the loss of a check and ordered him dropped from the service as of September 26, 1950, “without prejudice to their employment, if and when there is a suitable position for them and after the appointing officer has been apprised of the instant case.” On March 21, 1951, Gorospe requested reinstatement. He resumed work on April 26, 1951, as a clerk with a salary of P1,320 per annum, and on April 27, 1951, the Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications extended to him an appointment, which was sent to the Bureau of Civil Service. On January 13, 1954, the Director of Posts terminated his services as clerk effective January 31, 1954, because his appointment had not been approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, who had previously ordered his dismissal for grave misconduct. Gorospe’s requests for reconsideration were denied. On September 20, 1954, the Director of Posts sent him a copy of his appointment for actual services rendered from April 26, 1951, to January 31, 1954. Gorospe filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, praying for reinstatement and deletion of the expiration notation on his appointment. The court dismissed the petition, and the appeal was certified to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus lies to compel the reinstatement of Vicente E. Gorospe to his position as clerk in the Bureau of Posts, considering his previous dismissal for grave misconduct and the lack of final approval of his subsequent appointment by the Commissioner of Civil Service.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The Court held that an appointment reinstating an employee in the service is not final or complete until certified by the Commissioner of Civil Service, pursuant to Section 662 of the Revised Administrative Code and Civil Service Rules. Rule VII of the Civil Service Rules allows reinstatement under certain conditions, but Section 5, Rule II, authorizes the Commissioner to refuse certification of an appointment of an eligible who has been dismissed for misconduct. The Commissioner of Civil Service forwarded Gorospe’s proposed appointment to the Commissioner of the Budget without attestation, indicating a refusal to certify it due to his prior dismissal. Consequently, the appointing officer validly recalled the appointment, especially as it was policy to remove employees involved in anomalies. The fact that Gorospe rendered service and received salary did not validate the appointment, as such payment contravened Section 690 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibits salary payment prior to authorization under Civil Service law and rules. Mandamus does not lie to reinstate an employee dismissed for cause after proper investigation, or when reinstatement is subject to conditions like the availability of a suitable position and the appointing officer’s awareness of the dismissal.