G.R. No. L-30070 August 29, 1980
FEDERICO DECANO, petitioner-appellee, vs. ROMEO F. EDU, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation and CIPRIANO POSADAS, as Acting Registrar, Land Transportation Commission, Dagupan City Agency, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Federico Decano was issued a temporary appointment as janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office, Dagupan City Agency, by the Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications in 1962. After almost four years of service, his employment was terminated via a telegram from Acting Commissioner Romeo F. Edu of the Land Transportation Commission (LTC). Decano subsequently filed a petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, seeking to nullify his removal, compel his reinstatement, and recover his salary. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction in his favor.
Respondents contested the CFI’s jurisdiction, arguing that since the official station of Commissioner Edu, whose order was assailed, was in Quezon City, the proper venue was in Metropolitan Manila. After trial, the lower court ruled on the merits, declaring Decano’s removal null and void. It held that while a temporary appointee like Decano could be removed at any time, the power to remove him was vested in the appointing authority—the department head—and not in Commissioner Edu.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the CFI of Pangasinan had jurisdiction over the petition for mandamus and injunction against national officials stationed outside its district; and (2) whether Acting Commissioner Edu had the legal authority to terminate Decano’s employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s decision, upholding both its jurisdiction and its ruling on the merits. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the power of judicial review over administrative decisions of national officials is not confined to courts where their offices are located. Venue properly lies with the court in the locality where the aggrieved party resides and where the questioned decision is to be enforced, as Decano worked and was removed in Dagupan City, Pangasinan. This prevents injustice to parties who would otherwise be forced to litigate in distant forums.
On the substantive issue, the Court agreed that Decano’s removal was invalid. While a temporary appointee enjoys no security of tenure and may be removed at the pleasure of the appointing authority, the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. Under the Revised Administrative Code, the power to appoint subordinate employees like Decano was vested in the department head (the Secretary of Public Works and Communications), as evidenced by Decano’s appointment being signed by the Undersecretary. Republic Act No. 4136, which created the LTC, placed it under the Department of Public Works and Communications and did not vest the Commissioner with appointing or removal powers over such positions. Since Commissioner Edu was not the appointing authority, he had no power to effect Decano’s dismissal. Therefore, the termination order was issued without authority and was null and void.