G.R. No. L-14576; April 27, 1960
JOSE GONZALES, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. BENIGNO ALDANA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose Gonzales and Adriano Alcazar are civil service non-eligibles and honorably discharged veterans of World War II. They were given temporary appointments as industrial arts teachers in the Division of City Schools of Iloilo in 1952. In the same division, there were five other temporary industrial arts and garden teachers who were non-veterans and also non-civil service eligibles. In June 1957, petitioners learned of a plan to remove them and replace them with civil service eligibles. An objective ranking of all seven temporary teachers, based on education, experience, service status/eligibility, and efficiency, placed petitioners Gonzales and Alcazar in the sixth and seventh positions, respectively. Their ratings were very close to those of the teachers in the fourth and fifth positions, with differences not exceeding one percent. Based on this low ranking, respondents (the Director of Public Schools, Assistant Director, and City Superintendent of Schools) selected petitioners for replacement. Petitioners were formally notified of their replacement in August 1957. They invoked the preference granted to war veterans under Republic Act No. 1363 and sought administrative relief from the Secretary of Education and the Commissioner of Civil Service, but were unsuccessful. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued a decision restraining respondents from dismissing petitioners and replacing them with civil service eligibles until after the five other non-veteran temporary teachers were first dismissed and replaced.

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 occupying similar positions who could be replaced first.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that 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. Petitioners, as veterans, 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 statutory preference was still applicable. The Court rejected the contention that the veteran preference law applied only to appointments and not to cases of replacement, noting that such an interpretation would be unjust and illogical. 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 the threatened replacement. Consequently, the non-veteran temporary teachers should be replaced first before petitioners.