G.R. No. L-10483; April 12, 1957
JUAN B. MENDEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. RODOLFO GANZON, and THE CITY OF ILOILO, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On August 21, 1953, petitioner Juan B. Mendez was appointed by the Mayor of Iloilo as “ACTING SECOND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, (CHIEF SECRET SERVICE DIVISION)” with compensation at P4,000 per annum. The appointment was approved under Executive Order No. 264 and noted as “temporary pending receipt of the required medical certificates” by the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Service. After serving for more than two years, respondent Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon, by letter dated January 5, 1956, informed Mendez of his removal from the position, effective immediately. The Mayor cited as reasons Mendez’s qualifications (being only a high school graduate with a Patrolman eligibility) and that he was not a man of the Mayor’s confidence, stating the intention to appoint a first-grade civil service eligible who was a practicing attorney. Mendez filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to enjoin his removal, claiming it was illegal and void as done without lawful cause. The lower court dismissed the petition, and Mendez appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the removal of Juan B. Mendez from his position as Acting Second Assistant Chief of Police was illegal and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the removal was valid. The Court held that an appointment made in an “acting” capacity is temporary and can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power. The Court cited its previous doctrines in Austria vs. Amante and Castro vs. Solidum, which established that an acting appointment is merely temporary and good only until another permanent appointment is issued. The Court rejected Mendez’s contention that the approval by the President and the Director of Civil Service converted his acting appointment into a permanent one, noting that the approval expressly referred to it as an “acting” appointment. Furthermore, the Court stated that such a conversion would violate the Charter of the City of Iloilo, which vests the appointment power exclusively in the City Mayor, and would infringe the constitutional provision limiting the President’s power over local governments to general supervision. The Court also distinguished the cases invoked by Mendez (Abella vs. Rodriguez, Mission vs. Del Rosario, Palamine vs. Zagado, and Quintos vs. Lacson), noting that those involved permanent appointments or positions where no proof of temporary character was shown, unlike Mendez’s case where the temporary, “acting” character of his appointment was express and uncontroversial. Therefore, Mendez could not evade the legal consequences of his temporary appointment. Costs were imposed against the petitioner-appellant.