G.R. No. L-23934 July 25, 1968
HIDPION P. DEL ROSARIO and AMADO SAÑEZ, petitioners-appellants, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, MIGUEL YVIENCO, DOMINADOR CAMERINO and JOSE MENDOZA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Hidpion P. del Rosario and Amado Sañez were appointed by Mayor Dominador C. Ilano of Imus, Cavite, as Chief of Police and Police Lieutenant, respectively. Del Rosario’s appointment, attested by the Provincial Treasurer, was later approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service as “provisional” under Section 24(c) of Republic Act 2260 because he lacked the appropriate civil service eligibility for Chief of Police, possessing only a patrolman eligibility. Sañez’s appointment was returned by the Commissioner without approval for lack of required papers. Both assumed their positions. Subsequently, the new Mayor, Dominador Camerino, terminated their services due to lack of appropriate civil service eligibility and offered them positions as patrolmen. The Commissioner also endorsed the termination of Del Rosario’s services. Petitioners refused to relinquish their posts, but their salaries were withheld. They filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, which dismissed their petition, holding their appointments were at best provisional and subject to termination. Petitioners appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the appointments of petitioners Del Rosario and Sañez as Chief of Police and Police Lieutenant, respectively, are permanent and whether they can be summarily removed from office without cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The appointments were correctly classified as provisional. Del Rosario’s appointment, though initially labeled “permanent” by the Mayor, was properly attested as provisional by the Commissioner because he lacked the appropriate eligibility (Chief of Police examination) and only had patrolman eligibility. Sañez’s appointment was never approved by the Commissioner and was returned for non-compliance. Under the Civil Service Act (Republic Act 2260), a permanent appointment requires meeting all requirements, including qualification in an appropriate examination. The Commissioner has the authority to prescribe distinct examinations for different police ranks (e.g., patrolman, police lieutenant, chief of police), and eligibility from one examination does not qualify for a different position. Since petitioners did not possess the required eligibility for their respective positions, their appointments could only be provisional. A provisional appointment is subject to termination, especially when a qualified eligible becomes available, as certified by the Civil Service Commission and as occurred with the appointment of Artemio Candalla, a Chief of Police eligible, to Del Rosario’s position. Therefore, petitioners were not illegally removed, and the dismissal of their petition was proper.