G.R. No. L-18945; July 31, 1964
GENE M. TULAWIE, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURIST OF SULU, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Gene M. Tulawie received a temporary appointment as Assistant Provincial Agriculturist of Sulu from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service. On November 7, 1959, he presented himself to respondent Provincial Agriculturist to assume his duties but was told to return on November 16. Before that date, the respondent, citing post-election political concerns, sought guidance from his superiors. He expressed that the newly elected provincial officials, belonging to a different political party than Tulawie’s family, would likely oppose the appointment. Consequently, Tulawie’s assumption was deferred.
Despite taking his oath of office and executing a statement of assets and liabilities on June 17, 1960, Tulawie was still barred from performing his duties. He filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Sulu to compel the respondent to allow him to assume office and to recover damages. The trial court ruled in his favor. The respondent appealed, arguing that Tulawie failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the Secretary’s alleged implied revocation of his appointment to the President.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was unlawfully excluded from his office and whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bars his judicial action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, with modification regarding back salaries. The defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies was untenable. The principle is that a party need not appeal a Department Secretary’s decision to the President before seeking judicial relief, as established in precedents like Villena v. Secretary of the Interior. The appointing authority, the Secretary, never formally revoked Tulawie’s appointment. The respondent’s act of barring Tulawie based on the political affiliation of local officials was an invalid, unilateral exclusion. A temporary appointment, while revocable at any time, confers a right to the office until it is lawfully withdrawn. Since the Secretary did not effect a revocation, Tulawie’s right to assume the position upon taking his oath became ministerial upon the respondent.
On the merits, Tulawie held a valid, approved appointment effective upon entrance to duty. The respondent’s refusal, motivated purely by political considerations, constituted an unlawful exclusion. The Court awarded Tulawie the emoluments of the office for a maximum period of six months (the statutory limit for a temporary appointment under Republic Act 2260), starting from the date of his oath, unless he earlier assumed another government position. The judgment for mandamus was thus proper, as the respondent had a clear legal duty to allow the duly appointed and qualified individual to perform the functions of the office.