G.R. No. L-40846. January 31, 1978.
ARSENIO N. SALCEDO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, VENANCIO N. DIA, Mayor of Candelaria, Quezon, or whoever may be acting in that capacity, THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF CANDELARIA, QUEZON, THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF QUEZON PROVINCE and THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF QUEZON PROVINCE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Arsenio N. Salcedo was appointed Chief of Police of Candelaria, Quezon, in 1955. His appointment was attested as permanent by the Commissioner of Civil Service on May 11, 1957, based on his eligibility from passing the U.S. Civil Service Examination for Messenger and Skilled Laborers in 1928, which was deemed appropriate. He served continuously until an administrative complaint led to his suspension in 1960. On March 12, 1965, respondent Mayor Venancio N. Dia terminated Salcedo’s services, asserting his permanent appointment was erroneous due to lack of appropriate eligibility. The Civil Service Commissioner, in an administrative case, found Salcedo guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer but ordered his reinstatement with a fine. The mayor refused to comply, ignoring subsequent directives from the Commissioner and the Office of the President.
Salcedo filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance, which ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself. It applied Republic Act No. 2260 (the Civil Service Act of 1959), ruling that Salcedo’s eligibility was not appropriate for Chief of Police as the position later required a separate eligibility, thus making his appointment merely provisional. This allowed his termination. Salcedo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether respondent mayor could legally terminate petitioner’s services despite the Commissioner of Civil Service’s prior attestation of his appointment as permanent.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled for petitioner Salcedo. The legal logic centers on the non-retroactivity of laws and the finality of the Civil Service Commissioner’s attestation. Republic Act No. 2260 took effect on June 19, 1959. Salcedo’s permanent appointment was attested in 1957 under the old Civil Service Law (Chapter 27 of the Revised Administrative Code). Applying the saving clause in Section 47 of R.A. 2260, rights vested under the prior law, like Salcedo’s permanent appointment, remain valid. The Court of Appeals erred in retroactively applying R.A. 2260’s new eligibility requirements to invalidate an appointment perfected under the old regime.
The attestation by the Commissioner of Civil Service in 1957 was final and conclusive on the question of Salcedo’s eligibility. The mayor’s subsequent challenge to that eligibility was moot and without legal basis. By persistently refusing to obey the Commissioner’s lawful order of reinstatement, the mayor acted arbitrarily and without legal justification. Consequently, the mayor was held personally liable for Salcedo’s back salaries. However, back wages were awarded only from December 1, 1965—the date the Commissioner ordered reinstatement—and not from the earlier 1960 suspension period, as Salcedo was under a valid suspension and was found administratively liable. The Court ordered the respondent mayor to pay Salcedo five years of back salaries at P3,600 per annum, plus attorney’s fees and costs.