G.R. No. L-26605 July 27, 1967
PABLO D. SUAREZ, GUILLERMO C. LUCAS and GERARDO I. BAUTISTA, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EDILBERTO REGALADO, ENRIQUE ROA, and NESTORIO BAUTISTA, respondents.

FACTS

On March 29, 1966, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to appoint petitioners Pablo D. Suarez, Guillermo C. Lucas, and Gerardo I. Bautista—who were then Election Registrars holding positions for “Municipal Registrars” under appointments dated February 1, 1964, but were detailed to perform duties in Manila—as permanent election registrars for specific congressional districts in Manila. The COMELEC directed its Personnel Office to prepare the corresponding appointment papers. This resolution was motivated by a desire to rectify the prior practice of appointing registrars without specific stations, in light of a new Registration Law and relevant jurisprudence.
Before this resolution could be implemented, another election registrar detailed in Manila, Ernesto Verdejo, filed a letter-petition with the COMELEC praying for his retention as one of Manila’s permanent registrars. This prompted the COMELEC to restudy the disposition of permanent appointments for city registrars nationwide. While permanent appointments for 33 other city registrars were approved, action on the four Manila positions was deferred for a more thorough examination of the service records of all registrars detailed in Manila.
On August 24, 1966, after evaluation based on specific guidelines, the COMELEC resolved to appoint respondents Enrique Roa, Edilberto Regalado, and Nestorio Bautista, along with Ernesto Verdejo, as the permanent Election Registrars for Manila, instead of the petitioners. Their appointment papers were issued, approved by the Civil Service Commission, and they duly qualified.
The petitioners, along with other affected registrars, refused to yield their offices and turn over property to the new appointees. For this disobedience, the COMELEC charged them administratively and ordered their preventive suspension. After failing to obtain reconsideration, the petitioners filed this action for prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, which was granted.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have a vested right to the offices of permanent election registrars for Manila, either based on their original 1964 appointments or the COMELEC’s resolution of March 29, 1966, such that the COMELEC’s subsequent appointment of different individuals violated their security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
1. Regarding the Original Appointments of February 1, 1964: The Court, citing Ibañez et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. L-26558, April 27, 1967, ruled that the petitioners’ original appointments as “Municipal Registrars” did not specify a particular station. Their subsequent assignment to Manila by mere detail did not confer security of tenure or permanency in that specific place. The offices filled were for “municipal registrars,” while the assignments given were stations for “city registrars,” covered by different item numbers in the appropriations act. Therefore, no security of tenure could be asserted based on mere assignments.
2. Regarding the COMELEC Resolution of March 29, 1966: The Court held that this resolution did not constitute a final and completed exercise of the appointing power that vested irrevocable title in the petitioners. An appointment becomes final from the appointing authority’s standpoint only upon the performance of the last act required. Under existing law, an appointment is not final or complete until certified by the Commissioner of Civil Service. Without such certification, the appointment may be recalled or withdrawn. Here, no certification was obtained, and the appointment papers for the petitioners were never even issued. The pending letter-petition of Ernesto Verdejo cast serious doubt on the initial choices, justifying the COMELEC’s restudy and subsequent revision of its resolution. The COMELEC’s final action appointing the respondents was within its power, and no valid reason was shown to substitute the Court’s discretion for that of the COMELEC.
Consequently, the petitioners’ claim of a violation of their right to security of tenure was without merit.