G.R. No. L-3318; May 5, 1952
CORNELIO ANTIQUERA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HON. SOTERO BALUYOT, Secretary of the Interior, HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, Mayor of the City of Manila, and MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the City of Manila, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Cornelio Antiquera, held the position of Assistant Chief Deputy Sheriff in the City of Manila. A committee on reorganization created by the Municipal Board recommended the abolition of the position of assistant chief of a division. The defendant Sheriff, upon request, found this recommendation well-founded. Consequently, the position of Assistant Chief Deputy Sheriff was abolished as of July 1, 1947, and eliminated from Appropriation Ordinance No. 3072. Following the abolition of his position, Antiquera applied for retirement with gratuity under Act No. 4183 . His application was favorably recommended by the Sheriff, the Commissioner of Civil Service, the Mayor (who submitted it to the Municipal Board), and the Municipal Board itself, which adopted Resolution No. 291 approving it. The City Treasurer certified available funds, and the Secretaries of Justice and Finance interposed no objection. However, on September 30, 1948, the defendant Secretary of the Interior, Sotero Baluyot, disapproved the retirement. The Secretary reasoned that the mere abolition of a position did not necessarily constitute a “reorganization” under Act No. 4183 , noting that the personnel and appropriation for the Sheriff’s office had actually increased, and that it was the Department’s policy to require additional conditions like the position being dispensable and the applicant being too old or disabled—conditions Antiquera allegedly failed to meet. Antiquera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file a complaint seeking a declaration of his right to the gratuity.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of the Interior abused his discretion in disapproving Cornelio Antiquera’s application for retirement gratuity under Act No. 4183 .

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Interior clearly abused his discretion. Act No. 4183 provides that a municipal officer or employee separated by reason of a reorganization may be retired with gratuity by the municipal council, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Court found that Antiquera’s position was unquestionably abolished as a result of a reorganization plan adopted by the committee created by the Municipal Board, as certified by the Sheriff and stated in the Municipal Board’s resolution. The law’s simple requirement is separation due to a reorganization, and the term “reorganization” is not restricted to those resulting in reduced appropriations; it can involve increased appropriations due to exigencies of the service. The Court ruled that the Secretary could not read additional requisites into the law, such as requiring the position to be dispensable or the applicant to be old or disabled. While the Secretary has discretion to approve or disapprove, his disapproval based on the stated grounds constituted a clear abuse of that discretion. The Court treated the complaint as a special civil action for mandamus, sufficient in its allegations, and set aside the appealed decision, directing the defendants to approve Antiquera’s retirement under Act No. 4183 . (A dissenting opinion argued that the Secretary’s discretion was absolute and not subject to judicial control, and that mandamus was improper to compel a discretionary act).