G.R. No. L-6787; January 31, 1955
Pedro Tolentino, et al., petitioners, vs. Ramon Torres, in his capacity as Acting Governor of Negros Occidental, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioners, thirty members of the Provincial Guard of Negros Occidental, were removed from their positions in June 1953 by then Governor Ramon Torres (respondent) through letters stating their services were no longer needed. The petitioners alleged their removal was without legal authority, as under Republic Act No. 557 , removal required charges, notice, and a hearing by the provincial board, and was politically motivated due to their affiliation with an opposing faction. The respondent denied political motivation, citing as reasons for removal: (1) lack of civil service eligibility (except petitioner Jose Real); (2) the temporary nature of their appointments; (3) the expiration of the terms of office for most petitioners on September 30, 1952; and (4) petitioners being unruly and undisciplined. For Jose Real, the respondent stated he failed to meet the condition of his appointment: a satisfactory physical fitness report from the Government Insurance System. The petitioners countered that these reasons were an afterthought to justify a political purge. The appointments on record showed all petitioners were appointed on a “temporary” basis. Except for five, the appointments expressly stipulated they would not extend beyond September 30, 1952. The appointments of four petitioners (Mario Pirano, Reynaldo Valencia, Pedro Barcillo, and Jovito Bacalangco) were temporary without a fixed expiration date but were effective “until replaced by an eligible” and subject to the Administrative Code, which limits such temporary appointments to a maximum of three months. Jose Real’s appointment was authorized as temporary pending a physical and medical examination report, which he failed to submit.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus for reinstatement and damages, claiming their removal was illegal and without due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement because they did not have a clear legal right to the offices at the time of their removal. The appointments of most petitioners had expressly expired on September 30, 1952, prior to their removal in June 1953. The temporary appointments of four petitioners, being subject to the Administrative Code, legally expired after three months, also well before June 1953. As for Jose Real, his appointment was conditional upon a satisfactory physical examination report, which he failed to fulfill; thus, he did not meet a condition of his appointment. The Court concluded that the case did not involve the unlawful exclusion from an office to which the petitioners were entitled, as required for mandamus. Therefore, the request for the writ was denied, with costs.