G.R. No. L-14576. April 27, 1960.
JOSE GONZALES and ADRIANO ALCAZAR, petitioners-appellees, vs. BENIGNO ALDANA, as Director of Public Schools, VITALIANO BERNARDINO, as Assistant Director of Public Schools, and IGMEDIO PARCON, as City Superintendent of Schools, Iloilo City, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose Gonzales and Adriano Alcazar are civil service non-eligibles who were given temporary appointments as industrial arts teachers in the Division of City Schools of Iloilo in 1952. They are both honorably discharged veterans of World War II. In the same division, there were five other temporary industrial arts and garden teachers who were non-veterans. All seven were non-civil service eligibles. In June 1957, petitioners learned of a plan to replace them with civil service eligibles. Respondent officials confirmed this, citing the availability of civil service eligibles. Petitioners invoked Republic Act No. 1363 , which grants preference to war veterans in government appointments. An objective ranking of all seven temporary teachers, based on education, experience, eligibility status, and efficiency, placed petitioners sixth and seventh. The ratings showed minimal differences; for example, the difference between petitioners and the teachers ranked fourth and fifth did not exceed one percent. Petitioners were formally notified of their replacement by civil service eligibles on August 26, 1957. They refused to leave their positions and filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which restrained respondents from dismissing petitioners until after the five other non-veteran temporary teachers were first dismissed and replaced by civil service eligibles. Respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether respondents may replace petitioners, who are war veterans but non-civil service eligibles, with civil service eligibles, when there are other non-veteran temporary appointees in similar positions who could be replaced first.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The preference granted to veterans under Republic Act No. 1363 applies not only to initial appointments but also to the retention of positions already held. Section 1 of the Act establishes a policy of preference for veterans, other considerations being approximately equal. Section 5 requires that a veteran have approximately the same qualifications as other applicants and does not grant priority over civil service eligibles unless the veteran possesses the same or higher eligibility. Here, petitioners, though non-eligibles, had approximately the same qualifications as the other non-veteran temporary teachers, as evidenced by the minimal difference in their objective ranking scores. Therefore, the veteran preference is applicable. The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s contention that the law applies only to appointments and not to incumbents, noting that such an interpretation would be unjust and illogical. The Interpretative Order No. 130, cited by the Solicitor General, which states that the preference does not apply to promotions and transfers, implicitly recognizes that the preference continues after appointment. The Court also found that petitioners had sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies by seeking relief from the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Secretary of Education before resorting to judicial action.