G.R. No. L-26090, September 6, 1967
ISIDRO B. RAMOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Isidro B. Ramos was first appointed policeman of Tanay, Rizal, on October 1, 1933. He passed the patrolman qualifying examination on October 2, 1937. He was dismissed on December 2, 1941, but was later reinstated and held various temporary and permanent appointments, culminating in a “permanent” appointment as Chief of Police of Tanay on April 1, 1960, with subsequent salary increases. His last appointment as Chief of Police, dated July 1, 1963, was received by the Civil Service Commissioner on November 18, 1963, and approved on March 24, 1964, but only “for the period of actual service rendered to continue until replaced by an eligible but not beyond thirty days from the date of receipt thereof in the office of the provincial treasurer.” Ramos had taken the Civil Service examination for Chief of Police on November 23, 1963, but failed, retaining only his patrolman eligibility. On June 11, 1964, Guillermo Castillo, who had the appropriate eligibility for Chief of Police, was appointed to the position. Ramos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which ruled that his latest appointment was void for lack of municipal council approval and had expired thirty days after receipt of the list of eligibles, but that he should be paid salaries as a de facto officer from the date of the preliminary injunction until judgment. Ramos appealed, raising the legal issue of whether his patrolman eligibility was appropriate for the position of Chief of Police, rendering his appointment permanent.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s patrolman eligibility is appropriate for the position of Chief of Police, thereby rendering his latest appointment thereto permanent.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s patrolman eligibility was not appropriate for the position of Chief of Police. The position of Chief of Police had a separate civil service eligibility requirement, and the appropriate examination to determine fitness for that position was not the patrolman examination but the Chief of Police examination. Under Section 23 of Republic Act 2260, qualification in an appropriate examination is required for appointment to positions in the classified service. Since Ramos lacked the requisite eligibility, his appointment could only be deemed provisional, valid only until replacement by an eligible, and in no case extending more than thirty days from receipt of the list of eligibles by the appointing officer. Receipt of the list occurred on April 2, 1964, making Ramos’s appointment effective only until May 2, 1964. Consequently, Castillo’s appointment on June 11, 1964, was valid and proper. The appealed decision was affirmed.