G.R. No. L-21485 July 26, 1966
JUSTINO L. DAVID, petitioner and appellant, vs. ANGEL DANCEL, Chief, Tax Registration Section, Real Estate Division, City Treasurer’s Office; THE CITY TREASURER, THE CITY AUDITOR, THE MAYOR OF MANILA, and the COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, respondents and appellees.

FACTS

The position of Chief, Tax Registration Section in the Real Estate Division of the Manila City Treasurer’s Office became vacant after the death of the Division Chief, Marcelino Cueto, in August 1961. The ranking in the Division was: 1) Marcelino Cueto (Chief); 2) Manuel Lapid (Assistant Chief); 3) Juan de Vera (Chief, Tax Registration Section); 4) Justino L. David, petitioner (Chief, Tax-Sold Property Section); and 5) Angel Dancel, respondent (Senior Clerk). Upon Cueto’s death, Lapid was promoted to Division Chief and De Vera to Assistant Chief, creating the vacancy. On August 5, 1961, the City Treasurer recommended Dancel’s appointment to the vacant position. Petitioner David protested, claiming he was next in rank and entitled to promotion. The Civil Service Commissioner dismissed the protest and approved Dancel’s appointment, citing Executive Order No. 503, series of 1934, which required a minimum efficiency rating of 85% for promotion, while David’s rating was 84%. After his motion for reconsideration remained unresolved for five months, David filed an action for quo warranto in the Manila Court of First Instance, seeking to oust Dancel. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that David was not a first-grade civil service eligible for the position, which carried a salary of P4,500 and required first-grade eligibility, because his first-grade eligibility (from passing the Bar) applied only to positions requiring professional knowledge of the law, which the Chief, Tax Registration Section did not. The court also upheld the 85% efficiency rating requirement and found David’s action not premature.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Justino L. David is entitled to promotion to the position of Chief, Tax Registration Section, thereby warranting the ouster of respondent Angel Dancel via an action for quo warranto.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto. The Court held that petitioner David did not possess the appropriate civil service eligibility for the vacant position. Under Republic Act No. 1080, as amended, David’s first-grade civil service eligibility (from passing the Bar examinations) was equivalent to first-grade eligibility only for positions “the duties of which involve knowledge of the respective profession.” Since the position of Chief, Tax Registration Section did not require professional knowledge of the law, David could only be considered a second-grade eligible for that position. The Court also ruled that Executive Order No. 503, series of 1934, requiring a minimum 85% efficiency rating for promotion, was not repealed by the Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules of 1956 and remained valid. David’s efficiency rating of 84% at the time of the promotion disqualified him. His subsequent rating of 85% in June 1962 and the new Civil Service Rules effective January 3, 1963, were irrelevant, as the determining factor was his rating at the time the promotion was made. Since David failed to establish his own right to the office, he could not maintain an action for quo warranto against Dancel.