Facts:

The case involves Cornelio Antiquera as the plaintiff and appellant against Hon. Sotero Baluyot, Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Manuel de la Fuente, Mayor of the City of Manila, and Macario M. Ofilada, Sheriff of the City of Manila, as defendants and appellees. The events leading to the case began with a reorganization plan by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, which recommended the abolition of the position of assistant chief of a division. On June 6, 1947, the Sheriff of Manila, upon the Mayor's request, expressed that the recommendation was well-founded, leading to the abolition of Antiquera's position effective July 1, 1947. Following this, Antiquera applied for retirement with gratuity under Act No. 4183 on July 30, 1947. The Sheriff recommended approval, and the Commissioner of Civil Service indicated no objection to the application. The Mayor submitted Antiquera's application to the Municipal Board, which approved it on August 25, 1947. However, on...

Facts:

Background and Reorganization Plan

• The Municipal Board of the City of Manila, through a committee on reorganization, initiated a plan to reorganize the various departments and offices of the city government.
• As part of the reorganization, the committee recommended abolishing the position of assistant chief of a division.
• The defendant Sheriff, upon the request of the defendant Mayor, examined the recommendation and on June 6, 1947, advised that the plan was well founded insofar as it affected his office.

Abolition of the Plaintiff’s Position

• The plaintiff, Cornelio Antiquera, held the position of assistant chief deputy sheriff.
• Following the sheriff’s comment, his position was eliminated effective July 1, 1947, and removed from the Appropriation Ordinance No. 3072, series of 1947.
• The elimination was part of the broader reorganization of the city departments, despite an overall increase in personnel and appropriation in the sheriff’s office (personnel increased from 53 to 59; salary appropriation from P48,920 to P55,900).

Submission and Endorsement of the Retirement Application

• On July 30, 1947, following the abolition of his position, the plaintiff applied for retirement with gratuity under the provisions of Act No. 4183.
• The application was promptly recommended by the defendant Sheriff on July 31, 1947.
• The officials in the administrative chain, including the Commissioner of Civil Service (August 5, 1947), and later the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Finance, endorsed and expressed no objection to the plaintiff’s retirement.
• The Municipal Board of Manila subsequently adopted Resolution No. 291 on August 25, 1947 approving his application, with the defendant Mayor endorsing it thereafter.
• On September 5, 1947, the City Treasurer certified the availability of funds for the payment of the gratuity in twelve installments, further supported by the respective departments’ recommendations.

Disapproval of the Retirement Application

• Despite the endorsements, on September 30, 1948, the defendant Secretary of the Interior rendered a decision disapproving the plaintiff’s retirement under Act No. 4183.
• The Secretary based his disapproval on several grounds:
• He argued that the mere abolition of the position did not necessarily constitute a reorganization.
• He pointed out that the overall personnel and appropriation in the sheriff’s office had increased, and a new position (deputy sheriff as administrative officer) had been created.
• He asserted that additional requirements—such as the abolished position being “dispensable” or the applicant being too old or physically/mentally unable to continue service—had not been met by the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff’s subsequent petition for reconsideration on January 31, 1949 was denied.

Initial Court Ruling on the Application

• The trial court held that since the Secretary of the Interior had already passed on the application, the decision was final and binding on the defendants (Mayor and Sheriff), who were compelled to follow it.
• The court opined that even if it had jurisdiction, the review of the discretionary act of the Secretary was improper in the absence of clear justification for interfering with such discretion.
• The trial court, therefore, denied the relief sought by the plaintiff.

Issue:

Whether the abolition of the plaintiff’s position as a result of a reorganization qualifies him for retirement under Act No. 4183.

• Did the reorganization, despite the increased overall appropriation and personnel, legitimately result in the elimination of the plaintiff’s specific post?
• Is the mere removal of an item (position) from the organization sufficient to trigger retirement benefits under the statute?

Whether the Secretary of the Interior abused his discretion in disapproving the plaintiff’s retirement application.

• Was the Secretary’s decision justified based on non-statutory criteria (e.g., the requirement that the position be “dispensable” or that the applicant be too old or physically/mentally disabled)?
• Does the existence of additional conditions beyond the statutory provision of reorganization render the Secretary’s action arbitrary or contrary to law?

• Whether the issuance of a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the approval of the retirement application given the discretionary nature of the Secretary’s authority under Act No. 4183.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)