G.R. No. 27314 and G.R. No. L-27701, September 26, 1974
TEODOSIA ALFILER, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were employees of the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) whose services were terminated by the Auditor General through Office Order No. 4135, effective February 28, 1966. The termination was justified on the grounds of economy due to NAMARCO’s precarious financial condition. The petitioners, holding positions as either confidential agents or laborers, filed a mandamus suit in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arguing that their dismissal violated their constitutional right to security of tenure, as they were allegedly removed without cause.
The respondent Judge dismissed the mandamus petition, upholding the Auditor General’s authority to terminate the appointments. The court found that the petitioners held temporary appointments and were not civil service eligibles, making their positions terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Subsequently, the petitioners pursued two parallel remedies: they filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-27701) and, three days later, initiated a separate original action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the same Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 27314 ), both challenging the same dismissal order.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of the petitioners’ employment violated their constitutional right to security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, affirming the dismissal order and dismissing the separate certiorari proceeding. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the petitioners’ appointments. The constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, which requires removal only for cause, applies exclusively to permanent employees in the civil service. The Court found that the petitioners were employed in a temporary capacity, as either confidential agents or laborers, and were not civil service eligibles. Temporary appointments are terminable at will, without the need to establish cause, at the discretion of the appointing authority. The Auditor General, vested with statutory authority to appoint and fix the personnel in the NAMARCO auditing office, consequently possessed the correlative power to terminate such temporary appointments. The reason cited for termination—economic retrenchment due to the corporation’s financial state—was legally permissible but ultimately unnecessary to justify the dismissal, as the temporary status itself allowed termination at any time. The Court also admonished counsel for burdening the judiciary with two separate proceedings on the identical issue, noting such practice showed a lack of respect for judicial economy. Therefore, the petitioners had no clear legal right enforceable by mandamus, and their dismissal was valid.