G.R. No. L-32619 October 31, 1972
RUEL P. LAMATA and FLORENCIO DE LA CERNA, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., Judge of CFI Davao, and HON. ELIAS B. LOPEZ, City Mayor of Davao, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Ruel P. Lamata and Florencio de la Cerna were members of the Davao City police force, holding appointments as patrolmen approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service as “provisional” under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260 . Following the 1967 elections, respondent Mayor Elias B. Lopez assumed office. On or about May 1, 1968, Mayor Lopez terminated the services of Lamata and De la Cerna, effective June 1, 1968, on the ground that their appointments were temporary and they were to be replaced by civil service eligibles.
The petitioners, along with another dismissed employee, filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Davao to compel their reinstatement and claim damages. On June 28, 1969, the trial court dismissed the petition as to Lamata and De la Cerna but ordered the reinstatement of their co-petitioner. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, Lamata and De la Cerna elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioners, who held provisional appointments, by Mayor Lopez was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid for a specific period. The legal logic centers on the statutory nature of a provisional appointment under the Civil Service Act. The Court clarified that a provisional appointee, who possesses the necessary qualifications for the office except the formal civil service eligibility, is not a mere temporary employee who may be removed at will. Citing Section 24(c) of R.A. No. 2260 and the implementing Civil Service Rules, the Court held that a provisional appointment remains valid until the appointing officer receives a certification of eligibles from the Civil Service Commission and may continue for a maximum of thirty days after such receipt, or until the actual appointment of a civil service eligible.
Applying this doctrine, the Court found that Mayor Lopez had not received any certification of eligibles for the positions held by Lamata and De la Cerna at the time of their dismissal on June 1, 1968, or even thereafter. Crucially, Mayor Lopez admitted in a court manifestation that he did not actually fill the resulting vacancies until November 22, 1968. Therefore, the petitioners’ provisional appointments were legally effective until that later date, rendering their dismissal on June 1, 1968, premature and illegal for the period from June 1 to November 22, 1968. The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the dismissal remained invalid indefinitely simply because the new appointees’ papers were pending approval, noting that the new appointees were in fact eligible and the delay was due to the pendency of this case. Consequently, the Court modified the appealed decision, ordering Mayor Lopez to indemnify the petitioners with their salaries for the stated illegal dismissal period, with legal interest. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.