G.R. No. L-41381-82. January 30, 1976.
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, JR., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ROMULO RODRIGUEZ, JR., ET AL., respondents-appellees. DEMOSTHENES OLARIO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ROMULO RODRIGUEZ, JR., ET AL., respondents-appellees, GUILLERMO ABABON respondent-appellant.

FACTS

This case consolidates two petitions for review concerning the termination of various city employees of Gingoog City. In Civil Case No. 72-M, petitioners were policemen appointed between 1964 and 1966. Their appointments were classified as either “provisional” or “temporary,” with some expressly limited to six months. In Civil Case No. 73-M, petitioners were members of the City Fire Department and a Deputy City Assessor, appointed under similar provisional or temporary statuses, with some appointments lacking proper attestation or Civil Service approval. Upon assuming office on January 1, 1968, the newly elected Mayor, Romulo Rodriguez, Jr., issued memoranda on January 2, 1968, terminating the services of all casual employees and those with temporary appointments who had not resigned after six months. Specific memoranda were sent to the Police and Fire Departments, terminating the services of non-eligible personnel. Consequently, the petitioners received notices of termination effective January 2, 1968. They filed suits in the Court of First Instance for reinstatement and back salaries. The trial court dismissed the petitions of the policemen (Case 72-M) and some fire department personnel, but ordered the reinstatement of four fire department employees with back salaries payable by the Fire Chief personally.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the termination of the petitioners, who held provisional or temporary appointments without civil service eligibility, was valid under the Civil Service Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petitions and reversed the order for reinstatement and back salaries for the four firemen. The legal logic rests on the nature of provisional and temporary appointments under the Civil Service Act ( Republic Act No. 2260 ). A provisional appointment, authorized under Section 24(c), is made in the absence of an appropriate eligible register and is inherently temporary. It confers no vested right to the position and can be terminated at any time, at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The Court emphasized that such an appointee serves only at the discretion of the appointing power. The petitioners’ separations were not removals but merely the expiration of their temporary terms. The Mayor’s memoranda were a lawful exercise of administrative prerogative to terminate employees holding non-permanent status. For those with appointments expressly limited to six months, their terms had long expired by 1968, and they could claim no right to continued service. The Court also held that the Fire Chief, Guillermo Ababon, could not be held personally liable for back salaries as he acted pursuant to the lawful orders of the Mayor. The petitioners, lacking eligibility and permanent status, possessed no legal right to security of tenure that could be violated by their termination.