GR L 30341; (August, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30341 August 22, 1969
Remigio R. Esquillo, petitioner-appellant, vs. Hon. Abelardo Subido as Commissioner of Civil Service, Carmelo C. Nadera, as Mun. Mayor, and Santiago Pareño, as Mun. Treasurer, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On September 2, 1963, Municipal Mayor Epifanio J.V. Orias appointed Remigio R. Esquillo as Chief of Police of Tayabas, Quezon, intending the appointment to be permanent. However, as Esquillo lacked the required civil service eligibility for the position, the Provincial Treasurer, as Deputy of the Commissioner of Civil Service, approved the appointment on October 1, 1963, as a provisional or temporary one under section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260. Esquillo is presumed to have accepted the provisional character of his appointment. Respondent Carmelo C. Nadera was subsequently elected Mayor in the 1963 elections. On March 30, 1964, the Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 161, which effectively removed Esquillo from his position. Mayor Nadera implemented this resolution on October 7, 1964, advising Esquillo that his services were terminated effective October 15, 1964. On December 23, 1964, the Commissioner of Civil Service certified that Esquillo had successfully passed the examination for Chief of Police. Esquillo filed a petition for mandamus to compel his reinstatement and payment of back salaries, arguing his removal violated constitutional due process.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, holding a provisional or temporary appointment as Chief of Police, is entitled to reinstatement and due process protection against removal.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the petition. The Court held that an appointment that is temporary or provisional in nature confers no fixed or protected tenure. Citing precedents (Barangan v. Hernando and Santos v. Chico), the Court ruled that the appointing authority has the right to terminate such appointments at any time, as the condition is inherent in their temporary character. Since Esquillo’s appointment was approved as provisional due to his lack of eligibility at the time, he enjoyed no security of tenure. Therefore, his termination did not violate due process, and he had no clear legal right to reinstatement via mandamus. The appeal was dismissed without costs.