GR L 14580; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14580; April 30, 1960
BEOFRATO ATAY and EUSEBIO YAMUTA, petitioners-appellants, vs. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners Beofnato Atay and Eusebio Yamuta filed a petition for mandamus with damages in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. Atay was appointed janitor-guard in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer effective May 16, 1956. Yamuta was extended a promotional appointment as a private provincial guard in the Office of the Provincial Warden on July 1, 1957. They were both directed to cease their services on September 16, 1957. Petitioners alleged their removal was without cause and without a prior hearing, contrary to constitutional and civil service rules, and that they had rendered faithful and satisfactory service. They sought reinstatement with back salaries and damages. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition stated no cause of action, arguing that as non-eligibles, petitioners could be removed at will. The lower court dismissed the petition, citing applicable Supreme Court precedents.
ISSUE
Whether the removal of petitioners, who were temporary non-eligible appointees in the classified civil service, was lawful.
RULING
Yes, the removal was lawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The appointments and removals occurred before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 2260 (the new Civil Service Law), so the governing law was the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners admitted they were not civil service eligibles and held temporary appointments. Their positions (janitor-guard and private provincial guard) belonged to the classified civil service. Under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, temporary appointments without examination are authorized only for a period not exceeding three months, solely to await the availability of eligibles, and such appointments cannot extend beyond thirty days from receipt of a certification of eligibles. As temporary appointees, petitioners could lawfully be replaced after the expiration of their authorized terms, even by other non-eligibles. The fact that they served for more than three months did not convert their status into permanent or eligible. Consequently, their removal by the appointing power was in accordance with law, and they were not entitled to reinstatement or back salaries.