G.R. No. L-12536; September 24, 1958
CONCEPCION G. BRIONES, accompanied by her husband DEMOCRITO R. BRIONES, and FAUSTINO O. ROSAGARAN, petitioners-appellees, vs. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., Mayor of Cebu City, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners Concepcion G. Briones (a first-grade civil service eligible, appointed Clerk-Stenographer in 1937, later transferred to the Office of the City Mayor with permanent status, receiving repeated promotions) and Faustino O. Rosagaran (a second-grade civil service eligible, employed since 1940 in the same office, promoted to Administrative Officer, and declared “Model Employee” in 1955) held permanent positions in the Cebu City Mayor’s office. On January 5, 1956, the Municipal Board, upon the City Mayor’s request, passed Resolution No. 21 creating 35 new positions in the Mayor’s office with substantial appropriations. Subsequently, on February 14, 1956, the Board passed Ordinance No. 192, abolishing 32 positions in the offices of the City Mayor and the Municipal Board, including those of the petitioners. The City Mayor approved the ordinance on February 20, 1956, and notified petitioners on February 23, 1956, that their services would terminate on March 15, 1956. Petitioners protested, stating they would not relinquish their positions until determined by competent authorities. After their services were terminated and their salaries withheld, they filed an action for mandamus with damages seeking reinstatement, back salaries, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance of Cebu ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the abolition null and void for lack of approval by the Department Head as required by a 1954 Circular and Executive Order No. 506, series of 1934. Respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the abolition of the petitioners’ positions was valid and done in good faith, or whether it constituted a removal without cause in violation of their constitutional security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court, but on different grounds. It held that the abolition of the petitioners’ positions was not done in good faith and was a mere subterfuge to remove them without cause, violating their constitutional right to security of tenure under the Civil Service.
The Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the requirement for Department Head approval (under Executive Order No. 506 and the 1954 Circular) was no longer operative, citing recent doctrines that the President only has general supervision, not control, over local governments. However, it found the cited case of Pulutan vs. Dizon inapplicable as it involved police officers governed by different laws.
The Court based its decision on the evidence, concluding that the stated reasons for abolition—economy and efficiency—were untrue. It noted that the petitioners were long-serving, efficient, and meritorious employees (with Briones serving since 1937 and receiving promotions, and Rosagaran being a “Model Employee” in 1955). Crucially, just a short time before abolishing their positions, the respondents had created 35 new positions requiring a large annual outlay (P68,100). This sequence of events rendered the claim of promoting economy and efficiency “transparent and unimpressive.” The Court emphasized that civil service eligibles with long and honorable service should not be sacrificed for newly created positions for non-eligibles or be subject to political changes. It cited Gacho, et al. vs. Osmeña, ruling that while abolition of an office does not imply removal of the incumbent, this is true only where the abolition is made in good faith and not used to discharge employees in violation of civil service law or for personal or political reasons.
The Court also dismissed the appellants’ claim that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as the Stipulation of Facts admitted that all administrative remedies had been exhausted.
The decision was affirmed, with costs against the respondents.