G.R. No. L-32797 March 27, 1974
PIO L. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO DE JESUS, AQUILINO PASCUAL, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pio L. Tolentino served in the Antipolo police force since 1934 and was appointed Chief of Police in 1958. His appointments, however, were consistently temporary or provisional in nature. On November 23, 1963, he took and passed the civil service examination for Municipal Chief of Police. Subsequently, on January 22, 1964, respondent Mayor Francisco de Jesus dismissed him from service. The Civil Service Commissioner, in an indorsement dated April 13, 1964, advised Tolentino’s reinstatement, noting his passing of the exam. The Mayor disregarded this advice and appointed Jose Oliveros instead.
The Civil Service Commission later issued a crucial letter dated February 28, 1966, canceling Tolentino’s eligibility. The cancellation was due to his failure to disclose in his examination application a prior criminal case, albeit dismissed, which was a required disclosure and a potential ground for disqualification. Furthermore, Tolentino had been convicted of contempt in 1960, a conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1968.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner Pio L. Tolentino was illegally dismissed and is entitled to reinstatement as Chief of Police.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that Tolentino’s dismissal was legal. The legal logic rests on two pivotal points: the nature of his appointment and the subsequent cancellation of his civil service eligibility.
First, the Court emphasized that Tolentino held office under a temporary appointment at the time of his dismissal on January 22, 1964. A temporary appointment, unlike a permanent one, does not confer security of tenure. As established in jurisprudence, such an appointment can be terminated at the will of the appointing authority without the necessity of showing cause. Therefore, his dismissal was valid on this basis alone.
Second, and decisively, the Court upheld the cancellation of Tolentino’s chief of police eligibility by the Civil Service Commission. His failure to disclose a previous criminal case in his examination application—a material fact bearing on his moral integrity—constituted a valid ground for the cancellation of the eligibility he acquired from passing that exam. With this cancellation, Tolentino was stripped of the requisite civil service eligibility needed to qualify for the position of Chief of Police. His subsequent conviction for contempt further disqualified him from holding a position demanding moral character. Consequently, he had no legal right to remain in or be reinstated to the office.