G.R. No. L-10027; June 30, 1958
ADRIANO PALAGOD, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. BERNARDO TORRES, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The ten petitioners were provincial guards at the provincial jail in Baybay, Leyte. In January 1955, respondent Governor Bernardo Torres terminated their services and replaced them with other respondents (except certain named officials). The petitioners claimed protection under Republic Act No. 65 (as amended) and Republic Act No. 557 , alleging they did not resign nor were they removed for legal cause. The case was submitted upon a stipulation of facts. The pertinent stipulations established that: (1) petitioners Alejandro Acedillo, Adriano Catorce, and Cresencio Bagaslao were veterans; (2) petitioners Adriano Palugod, Quirino Japon, Diosdado Piastro, and Epifanio Enclona were members in good standing of a recognized guerrilla unit under Republic Act No. 65 ; (3) petitioner Andronico Morfe was also a member of a recognized guerrilla unit; (4) up to their termination, none of the petitioners had resigned or been removed for cause under Republic Act No. 557 ; (5) the respondent guards applied for and were appointed to the positions, assuming office immediately after the petitioners’ termination; and (6) none of the petitioners were civil service eligibles at the time of their termination, except Alejandro Acedillo, who received his civil service eligibility rating on July 29, 1955, after his ouster. The respondents, at the time of their appointments, were civil service eligibles. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, and the respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Governor lawfully terminated the petitioners, who were non-eligible temporary appointees, and replaced them with civil service eligibles.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision and dismissed the petitioners’ quo warranto complaint. The Court held that the petitioners, being non-eligibles holding civil service positions under temporary appointments pursuant to Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, could not continue in office for more than three months. Their replacement by civil service eligibles was lawful. The Court applied its precedents in Manigbas vs. De Guzman, Orais vs. Ribo, and Pana vs. City Mayor, which established that the holding of a position by a temporary non-eligible appointee beyond three months is unauthorized and illegal, and such appointee may be replaced even by another non-eligible. The preference in appointment granted to veterans and guerrillas under Republic Act No. 65 (as amended) was limited to a period of three years from October 18, 1946, and had lapsed by October 1949, long before the replacements in 1955. The fact that petitioner Alejandro Acedillo obtained civil service eligibility after his ouster did not render his prior termination illegal. The Court also noted that the respondents’ counterclaim for damages was not properly appealed. Costs were imposed against the petitioners.