GR L 28614; (January, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28614, January 17, 1974
VICENTE BENDANILLO, SR., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD, PROVINCIAL TREASURER and THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Vicente Bendanillo, Sr. was appointed as a Senior Deputy in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu on September 1, 1964. This appointment was approved by the Commission of Civil Service under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260 , rendering his status temporary. He subsequently sought the formal creation and incorporation of this position into the provincial budget for the fiscal year 1965-1966.
However, the Provincial Board of Cebu, through Resolution No. 870 dated July 30, 1965, disapproved the request for the creation or incorporation of the position of Senior Deputy. The resolution cited the opinion of the Provincial Treasurer, who was not in favor of creating a new position. Consequently, Bendanillo was not reinstated, prompting him to file an action for mandamus to compel his reinstatement, arguing that the abolition of his position was illegal.
ISSUE
Whether the Provincial Board’s disapproval of the creation of the position of Senior Deputy, effectively abolishing it, constitutes a valid abolition of office that legally prevents the reinstatement of petitioner-appellant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling against the petitioner. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that the abolition of a public office is a prerogative of the legislative body, provided it is done in good faith. The Court emphasized that a valid abolition of an office is not equivalent to a removal of its incumbent. Since the petitioner’s appointment was merely temporary under Section 24(c) of R.A. No. 2260 , he served at the pleasure of the appointing authority and had no security of tenure.
Crucially, the Court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Provincial Board. The abolition was not shown to be a subterfuge to circumvent civil service laws or to remove the petitioner for personal or political reasons. The Board’s action was based on a legitimate policy consideration—the Provincial Treasurer’s disfavor towards creating a new position—and was consistent with other cost-saving measures, such as the prior abolition of 33 positions. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity and good faith in the performance of official duties. Therefore, the abolition was valid and effectively terminated the petitioner’s claim to the office.