GR L 11602; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11602; April 21, 1958
ALFREDO CUADRA, petitioner-appellant, vs. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA, in his capacity as Mayor of Bacolod City, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Cuadra, who was not a civil service eligible, was temporarily appointed as a member of the police force of Bacolod City on November 11, 1955. The position was newly created, and its salary was included in the budget approved by the City Council on November 14, 1955, and by the Secretary of Finance on January 18, 1956. Cuadra was 47 years, 3 months, and 13 days old at the time of his appointment. He had prior government service: pre-war employment in the City Engineer’s Office and the Patrol Division of the Bacolod Police Department, and later as a confidential agent from 1953 to 1954. He was never accused of any crime nor were charges filed against him prior to his dismissal. He was paid his salary from his appointment date until his removal. Cuadra filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, seeking reinstatement and payment of back salaries. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling his appointment was not in accordance with law. Cuadra appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioner Alfredo Cuadra from his temporary appointment as a policeman was valid.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that Cuadra’s appointment was merely temporary, as he was not a civil service eligible. A temporary appointment, akin to an acting appointment, does not confer a definite tenure of office and is terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power. Consequently, the appointing authority could terminate his services at any moment without the need to establish cause. The Court found it unnecessary to definitively rule on the applicability of the age limit (21-30 years) under Section 17 of Executive Order No. 175, series of 1930, for examination eligibility, as the temporary nature of the appointment was sufficient grounds for his valid separation. The petition was dismissed.