GR L 14580; (March, 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 a private provincial guard who received a promotional appointment on July 1, 1957. They were both directed to cease their services on September 16, 1957. Their petition alleged that their removal was without cause and without a prior hearing, contrary to constitutional and civil service rules, that they had rendered satisfactory service, and that their positions were to be filled by new appointees. They sought reinstatement, back salaries, and damages. The 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. Petitioners admitted in their brief on appeal that they were not civil service eligibles and that their appointments were temporary.
ISSUE
Whether the removal of the petitioners, who were temporary non-eligible appointees, was lawful.
RULING
Yes, the removal was lawful. 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. The positions of janitor-guard and private provincial guard belonged to the classified civil service. Under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, temporary appointments to competitive positions without examination could only be made upon prior authorization of the Commissioner of Civil Service and could not exceed three months, nor extend beyond thirty days from receipt of a certification of eligibles. Petitioners’ appointments were temporary and subject to this three-month limitation. The fact that they held their positions for longer than three months did not convert them into civil service eligibles. As temporary employees, they could lawfully be removed and replaced, either by eligibles or non-eligibles, after the expiration of the authorized period of their temporary appointments. Therefore, their removal was in accordance with law, and the order of dismissal was affirmed.