GR 47472; (July, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47472. July 24, 1981. VALENTINO TABOY (Assisted by her husband GERVACIO TABOY), JOSEFA A. BOHOL (Assisted by her husband ANTONIO BOHOL), ULDARICO MATILDO, REMIGIO BACUS and VIRGILIO MIÑOZA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF CEBU, THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF CEBU, THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF CEBU, RENE ESPINA, PABLO GARCIA, REYNALDO MENDIOLA, VALERIANO CARILLO and OSMUNDO RAMA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were appointed as laborer-helpers in 1965 by then Cebu Governor Rene Espina, with their appointments attested by the Civil Service Commission. However, these appointments, pertaining to the unclassified civil service, were not submitted to the Provincial Board of Cebu for approval as expressly required by Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. In January 1968, Governor Espina belatedly submitted the appointments to the Provincial Board, which subsequently disapproved them, including those of the petitioners. Consequently, petitioners’ services were terminated effective January 31, 1968.
Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement and back salaries. They claimed they had acquired permanent status due to Civil Service attestation and length of service, and alleged their removal was politically motivated as they were supporters of a rival political faction. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed their petition.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are clearly entitled to the writ of mandamus to compel their reinstatement and payment of back salaries.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that mandamus was not a proper remedy. The legal logic is anchored on the validity of the appointments and the stringent requirements for mandamus. Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code mandated that appointments to unclassified provincial service positions be submitted to the Provincial Board for approval. The petitioners’ appointments, though attested by the Civil Service Commission, were made without this requisite approval. Therefore, following the precedent in Valdez vs. Gutierrez, these appointments were not valid from their inception. The subsequent disapproval by the Provincial Board in 1968 merely confirmed this legal defect, rendering the termination of their services proper.
The Court further ruled that the claim of political removal was unsupported by evidence. The writ of mandamus issues only to enforce a clear legal right when there is a correlative plain duty. Petitioners failed to demonstrate such a clear and certain right to their positions, as their underlying appointments were invalid for non-compliance with a statutory condition. The attestation by the Civil Service Commission and their years of service could not cure this fundamental flaw or create a vested right where none legally existed. Thus, the petition for mandamus was correctly denied.