G.R. No. L-32271. January 27, 1983.
MARCIAL COSTIN, ESTANISLAO LAJER, LIONEL KANEN as Chief of Police; FRANCISCO TISADO, OCTAVIO TRAYA as Municipal Mayor; DOMINGO IPONG as Municipal Treasurer; and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ABUYOG, LEYTE, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LOPE C. QUIMBO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and HIGINIO VERRA, respondents.

FACTS

Estanislao Lajer, a member of the Abuyog police force since 1949, was promoted to Chief of Police on November 25, 1959, though this appointment lacked Civil Service attestation. On January 14, 1960, a new municipal mayor dismissed Lajer and eight others. That same day, the mayor appointed Higinio Verra as Chief of Police, an appointment later attested as permanent by the Civil Service Commission. Lajer challenged his dismissal in a mandamus action (Civil Case No. 2713).
While Lajer’s case was pending, a subsequent mayor dismissed Verra on January 16, 1964. Verra then filed a quo warranto with mandamus action (Civil Case No. 3606) to secure reinstatement. Meanwhile, on January 22, 1966, the Court of Appeals decided Lajer’s appeal, ruling his removal was illegal and ordering his reinstatement with back salaries. Consequently, Lajer was reinstated as Chief of Police on April 1, 1966. The Court of First Instance later decided Verra’s case in his favor, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether Verra’s appointment was valid and his removal illegal; (2) Whether the Court of Appeals ordered Lajer’s reinstatement as Sergeant or Chief of Police; and (3) Whether Verra is bound by the decision in Lajer’s case despite not being a party.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and dismissed Verra’s petition. On the first issue, Verra’s appointment was invalid because no legal vacancy existed. Lajer’s 1959 appointment, though unapproved, was not void ab initio but merely incomplete. His illegal dismissal on January 14, 1960, did not create a vacancy; he was considered not legally separated and was entitled to reinstatement. Therefore, Verra’s subsequent appointment to the same non-vacant position was void.
On the second issue, the Court of Appeals unequivocally ordered Lajer’s reinstatement to the position of Chief of Police, the office from which he was illegally removed. The appellate court’s final decision, implemented in 1966, legally restored Lajer to that specific office.
On the third issue, Verra is bound by the outcome of Lajer’s case. The action was in rem, concerning the title to the public office itself. A judgment of reinstatement in favor of the rightful incumbent, Lajer, is binding against the whole world, including any subsequent appointee like Verra. The writ of mandamus issued for Lajer’s benefit required any person occupying the office, regardless of their personal claim, to yield to the adjudged lawful occupant. Verra’s possession could not prevail over Lajer’s judicially recognized right.