G.R. No. L-4989 March 30, 1954
MARCIANO INOCENTE, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. MAMERTO S. RIBO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

This is a quo warranto case. The petitioners, Marciano Inocente and thirteen others, claim they are entitled to hold the office of provincial guards at the provincial jail in Baybay, Leyte, to which they were duly appointed. They allege that the respondents, except for Provincial Governor Mamerto S. Ribo and Provincial Treasurer Melecio Palma, who replaced them, are not entitled to the positions because their appointments are unauthorized. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. The petitioners were appointed as provincial guards (one sergeant and thirteen privates) on various dates between 1948 and 1950, qualified, assumed office, and continuously performed their duties. Their services were terminated by Governor Ribo on or around October 31, 1950, and their positions were filled by the respondent guards. The petitioners did not resign, nor were they removed for cause such as misconduct, incompetency, or disloyalty. Two petitioners, Marciano Inocente and Telesforo Galenzoga, are civil service eligibles; the others are non-eligibles, but some are veterans or recognized guerrillas under Republic Act No. 65. After termination, Inocente was offered a transfer to Maasin provincial jail as sergeant (not as deputy warden), and Galenzoga was requested to report for duty at the Tacloban jail. It does not appear these offers were accepted. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that except for Inocente and Galenzoga, the petitioners were not entitled to the positions. It further held that the provincial governor had authority to assign guards within the province and that Inocente and Galenzoga’s refusal to be transferred constituted abandonment of office, though they were entitled to salaries from their dismissal until the offer of reinstatement. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners, particularly the civil service eligibles, are entitled to their positions as provincial guards at the Baybay provincial jail and may only be removed for cause and in accordance with law.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. It held that petitioners Marciano Inocente and Telesforo Galenzoga, as civil service eligibles, are entitled to their positions as sergeant and provincial guard, respectively, at the Baybay provincial jail. Their removal without cause and not in accordance with the prescribed legal process under Republic Act No. 557 was unauthorized and unlawful. They are entitled to reinstatement and to their salaries for the entire period of unlawful separation. Regarding the other petitioners (non-eligibles), the Court found that the respondents who replaced them (except for three specific respondents) were not entitled to be appointed because they were not appointed within the period provided for veterans under Republic Act No. 65, as amended. Therefore, the temporary appointments of these respondents were unlawful, and the petitioners (except Diome Medina and Francisco Sevilla) are entitled to their positions. Petitioner Diome Medina, appointed beyond the three-year period under Republic Act No. 65, may be replaced under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. The petition of Francisco Sevilla, who was not replaced by any respondent, was dismissed. The petition to oust respondents Bernardo Corsanes, Andronico Morfe, and Zosimo Macaraya was denied. No costs were awarded.
Separate Opinions:
Justice Diokno, dissenting (with Justice Labrador concurring), opined that a provincial guard could be reassigned and stationed by the Provincial Governor to another police station within the same province, such as another provincial jail.