G.R. No. L-22537 March 31, 1965
EUSEBIO TAÑALA, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARIANO LEGASPI, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellee Eusebio Tañala, a permanent civil service employee and Sanitary Inspector of Tacloban City, was suspended on May 6, 1954, following an administrative complaint and a criminal charge for malversation of public property. The Court of First Instance of Leyte convicted him on October 21, 1954. Based on this conviction, the Commissioner of Civil Service dismissed him from service effective May 6, 1954. However, the Court of Appeals acquitted Tañala on October 2, 1956. Upon seeking reconsideration, the Commissioner of Civil Service modified the dismissal to consider him resigned effective May 6, 1954, without prejudice to reinstatement. Tañala’s appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals was dismissed as late. He then appealed to the Office of the President, which, on March 21, 1960, ordered his immediate reinstatement. At the time of this order, Tañala was 65 years, 3 months, and 13 days old, and his former position was occupied by Filomeno Villamor since October 1, 1955. The Provincial Health Officer and City Health Officer refused to reinstate him unless he waived his back salaries. Tañala filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which ordered his reinstatement and payment of back salaries from May 6, 1954, to December 8, 1959 (when he turned 65), holding the City of Tacloban and its officials liable. The city officials appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the President had the authority to review and reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service under the new Civil Service Law (Republic Act 2260); (2) Whether the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service had become final; (3) Whether Tañala had abandoned his right to office; and (4) Whether reinstatement is legally impossible due to Tañala being over the compulsory retirement age of 65 and his position being occupied by another.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the President’s order of reinstatement was valid because the Commissioner of Civil Service’s decision was rendered on February 5, 1957, before the effectivity of Republic Act 2260 on June 19, 1959. Under the old law, the President had appellate jurisdiction over civil service cases. The Court ruled that Tañala did not abandon his right to office, as he continuously sought reinstatement through administrative and judicial avenues. The occupancy of his position by another appointee (Filomeno Villamor) is not a legal impediment to reinstatement, as such occupancy is considered temporary and must yield to the lawful officeholder. Regarding retirement age, while Tañala could not continue in service beyond 65, his illegal suspension and dismissal meant he was considered not to have left his office. Thus, he was entitled to back salaries from May 6, 1954, to December 8, 1959, and to all retirement and leave privileges due to a retiring employee at age 65. The Court declared him reinstated as of December 9, 1959, with all corresponding rights and privileges.