G.R. No. L-35703 October 30, 1972
MAXIMIANO ATA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. REINERIO S. NAMOCATCAT, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners were members of the police force of Valencia, Bohol, holding “provisional” appointments as patrolmen. At the time of their appointments, none possessed civil service eligibility, nor did they meet the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Police Act of 1966 ( Republic Act No. 4864 ). On January 23, 1968, respondent Mayor Reinerio S. Namocatcat issued Office Memorandum Order No. 4 terminating their services. Petitioners filed a petition for Mandamus and Quo Warranto, seeking reinstatement with backpay. The trial court rendered a split decision. It ordered the reinstatement of three petitioners (Pedro B. Japos, Luis Pait, and Geronimo Taculad) but upheld the termination of the other four (Maximiano Ata, Paulino J. Banoc, Doloroso M. Ipanag, and Anastacio B. Sales). Both parties appealed. The appeal regarding the three ordered reinstated was later withdrawn, leaving only the appeal of the four terminated petitioners, which was certified to the Supreme Court as involving a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of the services of petitioners Maximiano Ata, Paulino J. Banoc, Doloroso M. Ipanag, and Anastacio B. Sales was valid and legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the legality of the termination. The legal logic rests on the nature of provisional appointments and the specific mandate of the Police Act of 1966. A provisional appointment, by its very nature, confers no vested right to the position and is subject to the condition that the appointee meets the prescribed qualifications. The Court emphasized that the security of tenure for civil service employees depends on the nature of their appointment. Critically, the Police Act of 1966 established specific minimum qualifications for permanent appointment to a police force. Section 11 of the Act allowed for provisional appointments only in the absence of civil service eligibles, but explicitly required that even a provisional appointee for patrolman must possess at least the general qualifications provided in the law. Since the petitioners undisputedly lacked these minimum qualifications at the time of their provisional appointments, they never legally acquired a right to the positions. Consequently, their separation was not a removal from office but a lawful termination of an appointment that was void from the beginning for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court gave weight to the administrative interpretation by the Police Commission, which directed the immediate termination of services of those provisionally appointed after the Act’s effectivity who did not meet its qualifications. Therefore, the respondent Mayor’s termination memorandum was a valid enforcement of the law, not an illegal removal.