G.R. No. L-32191. July 30, 1971. CARLOS C. MANAOIS, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. LEROY S. BROWN, CITY MAYOR, ANTOLIN TAN SANCHEZ, CITY AUDITOR, LEOPOLDO MANAPOL, In-charge, CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE, all of Basilan City, respondents-appellees.
FACTS

Petitioner Carlos C. Manaois, duly appointed and confirmed as City Engineer of Basilan City, was detailed to Manila in 1967 pending an administrative case. The Office of the President, in its 1968 decision, ordered his transfer to another city due to strained relations with the local mayor but did not remove him. Following this order, the Commissioner of Public Highways instructed Manaois to turn over his Basilan office to an officer-in-charge and clear his accountabilities, which he complied with on January 15, 1969. Subsequently, the Basilan City Treasurer, with the Mayor’s concurrence, ceased paying his salary, considering him to have vacated his post as of that date.
Despite clear opinions from the Commissioner of Public Highways, the Office of the President (via the Assistant Executive Secretary), and the Auditor General that Manaois remained the City Engineer pending his actual transfer and was entitled to his salary, the local officials refused payment. Manaois filed a mandamus action to compel payment of his back salaries. The Court of First Instance of Basilan dismissed his petition, ruling that his compliance with the turnover instructions constituted an abandonment of his office.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Carlos C. Manaois had abandoned his position as City Engineer of Basilan City, thereby forfeiting his right to receive the corresponding salary.

RULING

No, the petitioner did not abandon his office. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and granted the writ of mandamus. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of petitioner’s status and the proper interpretation of the administrative order. Petitioner’s assignment to Manila was a mere detail or special assignment arising from the administrative case, not a new appointment or a voluntary acceptance of another office. The Presidential order mandated a future transfer, but until such a transfer was effected by a new appointment, petitioner remained the incumbent City Engineer. Compliance with a lawful directive from a superior to turn over office records in contemplation of a future transfer cannot be construed as a deliberate and voluntary act of abandonment. Abandonment requires a clear intent to relinquish the office, which was absent here as petitioner acted under orders.
The power to appoint or transfer him rested solely with the President. Since the President, through the Executive Secretary, explicitly ruled that Manaois was still the incumbent, local officials were bound to respect that determination. Withholding his salary effectively amounted to a removal without cause, which was without legal basis. The cited precedent, Calo vs. Magno, is distinguishable as it involved a duly appointed acting official filling a temporary vacancy, unlike here where the officer-in-charge had no such appointment and the issue was the incumbent’s right to salary. The Court ordered the respondents, particularly the City Treasurer, to pay petitioner’s accrued salaries as City Engineer.