G.R. No. L-6898 April 30, 1954
LUIS MANALANG, petitioner, vs. AURELIO QUITORIANO, EMILIANO MORABE, ZOSIMO G. LINATO, and MOHAMAD DE VENANCIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luis Manalang, formerly the Director of the Placement Bureau, contests by quo warranto proceedings the title of the incumbent Commissioner of the National Employment Service and seeks to take possession of said office. The original respondent was Aurelio Quitoriano, designated as Acting Commissioner on July 1, 1953. Subsequently, Emiliano Morabe (designated Acting Commissioner on September 11, 1953) and Mohamad de Venancio (designated Acting Commissioner on January 11, 1954) were included as respondents. Prior to July 1, 1953, Manalang was Director of the Placement Bureau, created by Executive Order. Republic Act No. 761 , approved on June 20, 1952, established the National Employment Service, with a Commissioner to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The Act explicitly abolished the Placement Bureau and the existing Employment Office in the Commission of Social Welfare, transferring their files, records, supplies, equipment, qualified personnel, and unexpended balances to the new Service. Although the Secretary of Labor and the Acting Secretary of Labor had recommended Manalang’s appointment as Commissioner, he was not appointed. Manalang argues that the National Employment Service is merely a continuation or amplification of the Placement Bureau, that the item of Commissioner is not new and is occupied by him, and that he is entitled to the office automatically by operation of law, particularly under the provision for transfer of “qualified personnel.” He contends that the designations of others as Acting Commissioner were illegal and equivalent to his removal without cause.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Luis Manalang is legally entitled to the office of Commissioner of the National Employment Service, thereby rendering the designations of the respondents as Acting Commissioners invalid.

RULING

The petition is dismissed and the writ prayed for is denied. The Supreme Court held that Manalang is not entitled to the office. Firstly, he was never the Commissioner of the National Employment Service and thus could not have been removed from it. Secondly, Republic Act No. 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau and, by implication, the office of its Director. The extinction of his former office was an act of abolition by Congress, not a removal, so the constitutional provision on removal for cause does not apply. The Act’s clear language and legislative intent, as shown by the explicit abolition clause and the sponsorship speech describing it as a “new office,” establish that the Service is distinct from the Placement Bureau. Thirdly, Manalang’s claim that he automatically became Commissioner by operation of law is untenable. The position of Commissioner requires a new appointment by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, which he did not receive. The provision for transfer of “qualified personnel” refers to subordinate officials and clerical employees, not to the head of the abolished bureau, and such transfer is conditioned “upon the organization of the Service,” which presupposes the prior appointment of a Commissioner. Congress cannot appoint or compel the President to appoint a specific individual. Therefore, Manalang has no legal title to the office, and the respondents’ designations, while he challenges them, are not shown to be invalid as against his claim.