G.R. No. L-11427; May 28, 1958
Dimas Reyes, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Dr. Fidel D. Dones, et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On August 16, 1956, petitioners Dimas Reyes, Leonardo Espiritu, and Geronimo Mojica filed an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cavite to compel their reinstatement with back salaries, claiming their separation from the Cavite City Police Department was illegal. The case was decided based on documentary evidence. All three petitioners were appointed to the Secret Service Division of the Cavite City Police Department on December 1, 1953. Their respective appointments were noted as “temporary” by the Deputy Commissioner of the Civil Service “pending receipt of the required medical certificate” and were approved as such by the Assistant Executive Secretary by authority of the President. On March 1, 1954, after the three-month period, they were served notices of separation by the Chief of Police effective February 28, 1954, “for lack of confidence and better qualifications,” following a communication from the city mayor. They were granted leave credits for March 1-15, 1954, except Reyes whose leave was exhausted. On March 16, 1954, the Acting City Mayor appointed replacements, considering petitioners separated due to the expiration of their appointments. Petitioners argued they could only be removed for causes under Republic Act No. 557 , while respondents contended that as non-eligibles with temporary appointments, they could be removed under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, who are non-civil service eligibles holding temporary appointments, were illegally separated from their positions in the police force and are entitled to reinstatement and back salaries under the protection of Republic Act No. 557 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the petition. The Court held that the petitioners’ appointments were temporary and conditional, as explicitly noted “pending receipt of the required medical certificate,” a condition they never fulfilled. As non-civil service eligibles, their appointments were governed by Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, which limits such temporary appointments to a period not exceeding three months. Their separation upon the expiration of this period was proper and legal. The Court rejected the argument that Republic Act No. 557 , which protects members of the police force from removal except for specified causes, applies to the petitioners. The Act’s protections extend only to civil service eligibles holding permanent appointments. Non-eligibles, like the petitioners, do not come under its protection. The fact that they held their positions for more than three months did not convert their status to eligibles or make their appointments permanent. Citing precedents such as Pineda vs. Velez, Tolentino vs. Torres, Paña vs. City Mayor, and Orais vs. Ribo, the Court reiterated that temporary appointments of non-eligibles are limited to three months and do not acquire permanency. Therefore, the petitioners’ separation was not illegal, and they are not entitled to reinstatement or back salaries. The decision was affirmed without costs.