G.R. No. L-11262; April 28, 1958
CARMEN R. CASTILLO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUAN C. PAJO, Provincial Governor, TIMOTEO BUTALID and MAXIMO CASTRODES, Provincial Board Members of BOHOL, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Carmen R. Castillo was appointed correspondence clerk in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bohol in November 1951. She served until June 12, 1954, when she stopped working due to Provincial Board Resolutions Nos. 161 and 300, which abolished her position effective June 9, 1954. Castillo protested, arguing her separation was unlawful given her civil service eligibility and status, and that the Secretary of Finance had disapproved the resolutions. She invoked the constitutional provision that “No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.” The respondents defended the legality of the abolition. The trial court dismissed her action for reinstatement, back salaries, damages, and attorney’s fees, ruling the Board had legal power to abolish the position. The case was certified to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Provincial Board validly abolished Castillo’s position.
2. Whether such abolition, if valid, produced her lawful separation from the provincial service.

RULING

1. Yes, the Provincial Board validly abolished Castillo’s position. The Board created the position under its power under Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code. The power to establish an office includes the authority to abolish it, absent constitutional or statutory rules providing otherwise. The Secretary of Finance’s indorsement disapproving the abolition was a mere suggestion, not a valid disapproval, as under the statutes then prevailing, the Secretary had no power to disapprove such resolutions. Republic Act No. 1063 , which required such approval, was enacted after the Board’s resolutions took effect and did not apply retroactively. The Court found no evidence of bad faith, as the alleged personal motive (a petition for salary increases) was not attributable to the Board, and the necessity of the measure was not a judicial question.
2. Yes, the valid abolition of the position produced Castillo’s lawful separation from service. The constitutional protection against removal except for cause does not apply to abolition of positions. The ouster was a consequence of the abolition, not a removal. The Court cited precedents (Rodriguez vs. Montemayor, Dominguez vs. Pascual) recognizing the authority of provincial boards to suppress positions occupied by civil service eligibles. Since the position was lawfully abolished, Castillo had no position to occupy and no right to a salary thereafter.
The judgment of the lower court dismissing the action was affirmed.