G.R. No. L-11169; January 30, 1959
FELIPE HORTILLOSA, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. RODOLFO GANZON, Mayor of the City of Iloilo, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Felipe Hortillosa entered government service as a patrolman in the Iloilo City police department in 1936 and passed the patrolman civil service examination in 1937. He was promoted successively to corporal, sergeant, 2nd lieutenant, and, on June 23, 1955, to captain. This last promotional appointment was authorized by the Commissioner of Civil Service as temporary under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, to continue until replaced by an appropriate eligible. On April 1956, the Mayor issued Executive Order No. 15, terminating Hortillosa’s service as captain and declaring the position vacant. Hortillosa inquired about the termination and, through his attorney, requested reinstatement, citing protection under Republic Act No. 557 . The Mayor did not respond. Hortillosa filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, seeking to declare the executive order illegal and to secure reinstatement. The respondent Mayor argued that the appointment was temporary and Hortillosa could be replaced by an eligible at any time. The trial court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Felipe Hortillosa, holding a temporary appointment as police captain, is entitled to reinstatement and protection from removal under Republic Act No. 557 after being terminated and replaced.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment dismissing the petition.
1. Nature of Appointment: Hortillosa’s promotional appointment to captain was explicitly authorized as temporary under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, as he had not passed the civil service examination for captain (only holding eligibility as a first-class patrolman). Temporary appointments under this provision continue only for a period not exceeding three months, and the appointee may be replaced by an eligible at any time.
2. Inapplicability of Republic Act No. 557 : As a temporary appointee, Hortillosa is not entitled to the protection afforded to members of provincial guards, city police, and municipal police under Republic Act No. 557 , which applies to permanent appointees.
3. No Vested Right: Hortillosa’s previous appointments (as sergeant, 2nd lieutenant, and captain) were either temporary or in an acting capacity, as evidenced by his service record and the Civil Service Commissioner’s attestations. Therefore, he cannot claim any vested right to the position of captain.
4. Replacement’s Eligibility: The Court noted that the respondent Mayor testified that the successor, Jose Z. Tiapon, was a civil service eligible. Even if Tiapon’s appointment were also temporary, Hortillosa, as a temporary appointee, had no superior right to the position.
5. Proper Remedy: Reinstatement could not be granted in this mandamus proceeding because the incumbent (Tiapon) was not impleaded as a party-respondent. Such a remedy would require a quo warranto proceeding. Even if he were impleaded, Hortillosa, having voluntarily vacated the position by accepting a temporary promotion, could not oust a successor who is a civil service eligible.
The Court emphasized that appointments in the civil service must be made according to merit and competitive examination, as required by the Constitution and the Civil Service Law. Since Hortillosa lacked the appropriate eligibility for captain, his temporary appointment was properly terminated upon the appointment of an eligible replacement.