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, 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.” This appointment was later extended to be effective only until May 2, 1958. Before this expiry, the City Engineer, Salvador Villacorta, informed Quitiquit 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 position was guaranteed by Civil Service Rules and that he could not be separated without cause, asserting he was a civil service eligible with permanent status under Republic Act No. 186 due to his continuous government service of more than ten years. After being excluded from work, Quitiquit filed a petition for mandamus. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissed the petition, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the termination of Mariano Quitiquit’s temporary appointment was valid, and whether he had acquired a permanent civil service status entitling him to security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the petition. The Court held that Quitiquit’s appointment was temporary in character, similar to an acting appointment, and as such, it could be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power. The essence of a temporary appointment lies in its temporary nature and its terminability at will. The Court ruled that the nature of an appointment is determined by the appointment itself, not by the nature of the position item. 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 permanent status and security of tenure because he had accepted and served under a temporary appointment. By accepting employment of a temporary character, he acquiesced to its terms and was barred from questioning the legality of its termination. The termination of his temporary appointment was therefore valid.