G.R. No. L-26558, April 27, 1967
AMADO O. IBAÑEZ and ESTHER A. RAFAEL-IBAÑEZ, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; ABELARDO SUBIDO, as Commissioner of Civil Service; EDILBERTO REGALADO, ENRIQUE ROA, ERNESTO VERDEJO and NESTORIO BAUTISTA, as Election Registrars of Manila; and BENITO TAGULAO, as Cashier and Disbursing Officer of the Commission on Elections, respondents.

FACTS

Pursuant to Republic Act 3808, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) approved a reorganization plan on December 21, 1963, which included 43 city registrar positions and 1,326 municipal registrar positions. Four city registrar positions were allotted to Manila. Due to a dearth of qualified personnel and the demands of implementing the new permanent registration system under Republic Act 3588, COMELEC adopted a policy of appointing election registrars without specifying their official stations in their appointments, shifting them as needed. Approximately fifty registrars were assigned to Manila. Petitioners Amado O. Ibañez (appointed February 1, 1964) and Esther A. Rafael-Ibañez (appointed November 2, 1964) were both appointed as “Election Registrar in the Commission on Elections” to municipal registrar items and were assigned to the 4th District of Manila. Respondents Regalado, Roa, Verdejo, and Bautista were similarly appointed as “Election Registrar in the Commission on Elections” to municipal registrar items and were also assigned to Manila at various times. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Puyat vs. Commission on Elections (declaring appointments of election registrars-at-large void) and the passage of Republic Act 4730 (which mandated appointment to a specific station), COMELEC reassessed its policy. A screening committee evaluated the approximately fifty registrars in Manila and recommended the four respondents for the four permanent city registrar positions allotted to Manila. On September 6, 1966, COMELEC issued a Memorandum Order relieving petitioners from their Manila assignments and ordering their transfer to provincial stations. Petitioners refused to comply and turn over property accountability. On September 9, 1966, COMELEC suspended petitioners for disobedience and initiated an administrative investigation. Petitioners filed this multi-purpose petition seeking, among other reliefs, to be declared permanent election registrars for Manila, to nullify the appointments of the four respondents, to lift their suspension, and to compel payment of withheld salaries.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought under certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto, specifically to be declared permanent election registrars for Manila and to nullify the appointments of the four respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the petitioners were validly appointed to positions of municipal registrars, not city registrars for Manila. The four positions specifically allotted for Manila city registrars were distinct and different items from the municipal registrar items held by the petitioners. The appointments of the four respondents to the Manila city registrar positions were valid, as they were chosen by COMELEC based on the screening committee’s evaluation. The petitioners had no legal right to the city positions as they were never appointed to them. Their refusal to obey the lawful transfer order justified their suspension pending investigation. The petitioners failed to establish a cause of action for quo warranto because they did not claim entitlement to the specific offices held by the respondents; they merely asserted a right to be appointed. The writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved.