G.R. No. L-14569; November 23, 1960
BENITO CODILLA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE L. MARTINEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On January 24, 1956, Mayor Hermenegildo C. Baloyo of Tagum, Davao, left for Negros Occidental and designated the vice-mayor to act in his place. The vice-mayor, due to illness, designated ranking councilor Macario Bermudez as acting mayor. Councilor Bermudez, also in poor health, designated the third ranking councilor, Jose L. Martinez, to act as mayor effective January 25, 1956. Martinez assumed office and, as his first official act, separated petitioners Benito Codilla, Perfecto Melendres, and Leonardo Castor from their positions as municipal policemen. Petitioners protested, invoking Republic Act 557, but Martinez appointed replacements (Eduardo M. Duaso, Juanito Redoble, and Policarpio Lagura), whose appointments were approved by the President and the Commissioner of Civil Service. Upon Mayor Baloyo’s return, he ratified the appointment of Policarpio Lagura. Petitioners filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Davao, seeking reinstatement with back salaries, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents argued that petitioners’ appointments were temporary under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, valid only for three months, and that they were not civil service eligibles, thus their separation was lawful. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling the separation was in accordance with law.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of petitioners’ employment as municipal policemen by Acting Mayor Jose L. Martinez was legal, considering his designation as acting mayor and petitioners’ status as non-civil service eligibles.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the legality of the termination. The Court held:
1. Validity of Acting Mayor Martinez’s Acts: Although Martinez’s designation as acting mayor was irregular (as it should have been made by the provincial governor under Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 21(a) of the Revised Election Code), he was a de facto officer acting under color of authority, not a usurper. His official acts, including the termination of petitioners, were within the scope of the mayor’s authority and thus valid. Moreover, his acts were subsequently ratified by incumbent Mayor Baloyo, curing any legal infirmity.
2. Status of Petitioners’ Appointments: Petitioners were non-civil service eligibles appointed under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code in a temporary capacity. Temporary appointments are terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power. Their replacement was lawful under said provision.
3. Inapplicability of Republic Act No. 557 : Republic Act No. 557 , which guarantees tenure for police officers, applies only to civil service eligibles. As non-eligibles, petitioners were not protected by this law.
The Court concluded that petitioners’ separation was in accordance with law, and the petition for mandamus was properly dismissed. No costs were awarded.