G.R. No. L-9699; February 28, 1957
LIBERATO JIMENEZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. GEN. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Liberato Jimenez was appointed as Temporary Chief of the Investigation Section of the Philippine Veterans Board on October 1, 1949, with an annual salary of P4,800. This temporary appointment was authorized by the Bureau of Civil Service under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, with the condition “BUT NOT BEYOND THIRTY DAYS (30) FROM THE RECEIPT OF CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE.” While on approved vacation leave from June 20 to August 3, 1951, he was notified by a letter dated July 30, 1951, from Acting Chairman Gen. Guillermo B. Francisco, that his services would terminate effective August 3, 1951, pursuant to a Board resolution dated July 20, 1951. The petitioner had taken the First Grade (Promotional) examination on November 4, 1950, and passed it with a rating of 74.380, as reported on September 5, 1951. After his separation, the Secretary of National Defense ordered his reinstatement, but the Acting Chairman of the Board informed the Secretary that reinstatement was not feasible as there was “no suitable opening.” The Civil Service Commission later certified the petitioner for appointment to any suitable position in the Board occupied by a non-eligible. The position he vacated was filled by Juan L. Gacad, who was promoted and later received a salary of P4,800 per annum. Criminal charges against the petitioner were dismissed. The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the respondent to prepare the petitioner’s appointment to a position with P4,800 per annum compensation. The respondents appealed, and during the appeal, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor of Field Team, but the Court of Appeals denied his motion to dismiss the appeal and elevated the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely questions of law.

ISSUE

Was the petitioner’s separation from the service due to lack of civil service eligibility (at the time of his termination, though he had passed the examination but not yet received the results) legal, to give way to the promotional appointment of another who is an eligible?

RULING

Yes, the petitioner’s separation was legal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the petition for mandamus. The Court held that under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, a temporary appointment without civil service eligibility is limited to a period not exceeding three months, extendable only up to thirty days from receipt of a certification of eligibles. The petitioner’s appointment as Temporary Chief on October 1, 1949, should have ceased three months thereafter. His continuance beyond that period was merely an extension of grace, and he could be removed at will by the appointing power. His implied dismissal by the appointment of an eligible (Juan L. Gacad) to his former position was legal. The Court cited the case of Paña vs. City Mayor Medina, which upheld the legality of dismissing temporary employees after the expiration of their authorized period. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere certification as a civil service eligible does not guarantee appointment; the appointing power retains discretionary choice. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement or emoluments after his legal separation on August 3, 1951.