G.R. No. L-17746 and L-17807; January 31, 1962
Alejandro Facundo, petitioner, vs. Hon. Javier Pabalan, Judge, Sixth Branch, Court of First Instance Pangasinan, Leonardo Carbonell, and Vicente Perez, respondents. Valeriano Ulep, et al., petitioners, vs. Leonardo Carbonell, et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Valeriano Ulep, a non-eligible Local Civil Registry Clerk since 1948, and Alejandro Facundo, a civil service eligible Market Collector appointed in 1958, were municipal employees of Asingan, Pangasinan. Following the 1959 local elections, a new municipal administration assumed office. On June 24, 1960, the municipal council, dominated by members of the Nacionalista Party, passed Resolution No. 67 abolishing the positions held by Ulep and Facundo. On the same day, it passed Resolution No. 70 creating four new positions for policemen. Consequently, Mayor Leonardo Carbonell terminated the services of both petitioners. They filed a petition for mandamus, alleging the abolition was done in bad faith, motivated by political revenge, and was violative of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959), particularly as Ulep had taken a qualifying examination under its provisions and awaited results.
The respondents contended the abolition was a valid exercise of municipal power to streamline administration and reallocate funds to priority concerns like peace and order. The trial court rendered a split decision. It ordered the reinstatement of Facundo, finding his removal illegal as his position was abolished merely to circumvent his security of tenure. However, it upheld the abolition of Ulep’s position and his consequent separation, dismissing his claims.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the municipal council acted in bad faith and abused its discretion in abolishing the positions; and (2) Whether Ulep’s removal was illegal under the Civil Service Act of 1959 and the constitutional security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in both aspects. On the first issue, the Court distinguished between removal and abolition of a position. A municipal council possesses the legislative authority to abolish positions for reasons of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient. The Court found no conclusive evidence of bad faith or abuse of discretion. The fact that the abolished positions and the newly created police positions involved entirely different duties supported the conclusion that the abolition was genuine and not merely a pretext to remove the incumbents. The change in administration and political affiliation, by itself, did not invalidate the act.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Ulep could not invoke the protective provisions of Republic Act No. 2260 or the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. These safeguards apply to removals without cause, not to a bona fide abolition of office. Since the abolition of his position was upheld as valid, his separation was a legal consequence, not an illegal removal. His pending qualifying examination did not confer upon him a vested right to remain in a position that no longer existed. Therefore, Ulep’s petition was denied. For Facundo, the Court directed the execution of the trial court’s order for his reinstatement and payment of back salaries, noting he had already been reinstated during the appeal.