G.R. No. L-15048; April 29, 1960
Mariano Quitiquit, petitioner-appellant, vs. Salvador Villacorta, in his capacity as City Engineer of City of Dagupan, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Mariano Quitiquit served in various temporary positions in the government from 1939 to 1956. On August 1, 1956, he was given a promotional appointment as a right-of-way agent, which was authorized by the Commissioner of Civil Service under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code “to continue until replaced by an eligible but not beyond thirty (30) days from receipt of certifications of eligibles.” On July 1, 1957, a proposed promotion for him was disapproved due to a policy against promoting non-eligible employees in classified service. Subsequently, his 1956 appointment was extended, with Civil Service approval, to be effective only from February 2, 1958, to May 2, 1958. Before this extension expired, the City Engineer, Salvador Villacorta, informed Quitiquit by letter dated March 27, 1958, that his services would no longer be needed effective May 2, 1958, citing the government’s austerity program and the temporary character of his appointment. Quitiquit contested this, claiming his employment was guaranteed by Civil Service rules and that he could not be separated without cause. After being excluded from work post-May 2, 1958, Quitiquit filed a petition for mandamus, claiming he was a civil service eligible with permanent status by virtue of Republic Act No. 186 due to over ten years of continuous government service. The trial court dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner, Mariano Quitiquit, having held a temporary appointment, could be lawfully separated from his position at the pleasure of the appointing power, notwithstanding his claim of having acquired civil service eligibility and permanent status under Republic Act No. 186.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that Quitiquit’s appointment was temporary in character, as it was made and extended under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. A temporary appointment, similar to one in an acting capacity, is terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power. The nature of the appointment, not the nature of the position, determines its character. The Court cited precedent (Villanosa vs. Alera) stating that a temporary appointment cannot acquire the character of a permanent position. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even assuming Quitiquit had become a civil service eligible under Republic Act No. 186 due to his length of service, he could not claim the protection of security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution. By accepting and serving under a temporary appointment of limited duration, he acquiesced to its terms. The Court cited Roque vs. President of the Senate and Tolentino vs. Torres, which held that employees who accept temporary appointments are barred from questioning their termination and that temporary employment can be ended notwithstanding civil service eligibility. Therefore, his separation was lawful.