G.R. No. L-3881; August 31, 1950
EDUARDO DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner, vs. GIL R. MALLARE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo de los Santos was appointed City Engineer of Baguio by the President, confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, and assumed office on August 23, 1946. On June 1, 1950, respondent Gil R. Mallare received an ad interim appointment to the same position. Petitioner refused to vacate the office after being directed to report for another assignment. He filed an original action of quo warranto, arguing his removal without cause violated the constitutional provision on security of tenure. Respondents contended the City Engineer of Baguio belonged to the unclassified service and, under Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code (the Baguio Charter), the President could remove such officers “at pleasure.”
ISSUE
Whether Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code, authorizing the President to remove the City Engineer of Baguio “at pleasure,” remains valid under the 1935 Constitution, which provides that “No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.”
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring petitioner entitled to remain in office. The Court held that Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code, insofar as it permitted removal at the pleasure of the President, was incompatible with and impliedly repealed by the 1935 Constitution. The constitutional provision protects all officers and employees in the Civil Service, including those in the unclassified service, from removal without cause. The phrase “for cause” means a legal cause related to the administration of office and affecting public interest, not mere discretion of the appointing power. Since the Constitution took effect before petitioner’s appointment, the challenged statutory provision was already abrogated and non-existent at the time of his appointment. Therefore, petitioner could only be removed for cause as provided by law, and respondent Mallare’s appointment was ineffective insofar as it prejudiced petitioner’s rights.
AI Generated by Armztrong.
