G.R. No. L-29588 December 27, 1968
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, GREGORIO A. EJERCITO, RIZAL DAGA, DIONISIO BARING, DIOSDADO ROQUE, ARTURO T. DE GUIA, AUGUSTO CASIBANG, JOSE ALCANTARA, FRANCISCO ALCANTARA, NEMESIO GATCHALIAN, ARMANDO PULGADO, RAMON S. SOLIDUM, ROCIO T. LOMUNTAD, VICTOR GELLA, CIPRIANO CID, JR., ALEJO BOQUIREN, JR., FELY ESTEBAN, EDELITA REYES, MERCEDES FELICIANO, FRANCISCO CASTRO, TERESITA BELISARIO, CRISELDA REMPILLO, ANGEL M. LOZARI, REBECCA CASIBANG, DEMETRIO MENDOZA, PEDRO MANALO, JULIA DAQUIGAN, LUZVIMINDO ECHON, DOMINADOR MENDOZA, and EMILIA FOZ, petitioners, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his personal capacity and as Commissioner of Civil Service, HERMOGENES DIEGO, in his capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, and HUGODINO COSIN LIM, in his capacity as City Auditor of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Manila Ordinance No. 6485, effective January 1, 1968, created the position of City Legal Officer and staff pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 5185 (Decentralization Act of 1967). On January 23, 1968, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas appointed Gregorio A. Ejercito as City Legal Officer, effective January 1, 1968, and also appointed 28 individuals to the staff of the City Legal Officer. The appointments were sent to the Civil Service Commission. After several follow-up letters from Mayor Villegas and no action from the Commission for about six months, Commissioner Abelardo Subido, on September 30, 1968, returned the staff appointments without action, stating Ejercito had no legal capacity to recommend them since his own appointment was not yet approved. On October 1, 1968, Commissioner Subido disapproved Ejercito’s appointment, citing his failure to meet the qualification standard of four years of trial work experience in the Court of First Instance and/or superior courts, despite meeting the education and bar eligibility requirements.

ISSUE

1. Whether Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) is applicable to appointments submitted directly to the Commissioner of Civil Service.
2. Whether Gregorio A. Ejercito meets the qualification standards for the position of City Legal Officer.
3. Whether mandamus lies to compel the Civil Service Commissioner to approve Ejercito’s appointment and release it.
4. Whether mandamus lies to compel the Civil Service Commissioner to act on the staff appointments.

RULING

1. No. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2260 is not applicable. This section contemplates a situation where an appointment is attested by the city treasurer as deputy of the Commissioner, takes effect immediately, and is forwarded to the Commissioner for review. It provides that if the Commissioner fails to act within 180 days, the appointment is deemed properly made. Since the appointments were sent directly to the Commissioner without prior attestation by the city treasurer, this provision does not apply.
2. Yes. Gregorio A. Ejercito meets the qualification standards. The Court found that his 22 years of service in the Office of the Mayor, performing extensive legal work including court appearances and handling cases for the City and the Mayor, constituted substantial compliance with the required four years of trial work experience. The purpose of the law is to enable the city to avail itself of “full time and trusted services,” which Ejercito had rendered.
3. Yes. Mandamus lies to compel approval. Public policy and public interest demand that the Civil Service Commissioner act on appointments directly submitted to him within a reasonable time of 180 days from receipt. Ejercito’s appointment was received on January 26, 1968, and the Commissioner’s disapproval on October 1, 1968, was beyond a reasonable time and without valid ground. The indorsement of disapproval is declared of no value and without effect. Mandamus is granted to compel the Commissioner to forthwith approve and release Ejercito’s appointment.
4. Yes. Mandamus lies to compel action on the staff appointments. The reason given for returning the staff appointments without action (that Ejercito had no capacity to recommend) no longer holds true once Ejercito’s appointment is deemed approved. The Commissioner is commanded to act on the 28 staff appointments within 30 days from the date of their re-submission to the Civil Service Commission. The doctrine in Villanueva vs. Balallo applies: when an appointee is qualified, the Commissioner has no choice but to attest to the appointment.