Facts:

The case involves Domingo Arao and his wife Iluminada Arao as petitioners-appellants against Antonio R. Luspo, the Mayor of Mambajao, Camiguin Subprovince, and the Municipal Council of Mambajao as respondents-appellees. On August 2, 1960, the Municipal Council of Mambajao passed Resolutions Nos. 62 and 63, which abolished the position of municipal clerk held by Domingo Arao since January 4, 1952. The council justified the abolition on the grounds of economy. Following the council's decision to abolish his position, Arao filed a motion for reconsideration but failed to attend the hearing set for that motion, effectively rendering it inactive. Consequently, he lodged a complaint with the Civil Service Commissioner, asserting that his removal violated his constitutional right to security of tenure as a civil service employee with a permanent appointment. Before the Commissioner ruled on his complaint, Arao initiated a petition for mandamus on June 21, 1961, in the Court of Firs

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• Petitioner Domingo Arao, together with his wife, Iluminada Arao, had been the municipal clerk of Mambajao, Camiguin subprovince, Misamis Oriental since January 4, 1952.
• On August 2, 1960, the municipal council of Mambajao passed Resolution No. 62 (and/or No. 63) which abolished the municipal clerk position effective August 3, 1960, citing reasons of economy.
• Arao moved for reconsideration before the council; however, his motion was deemed dropped when he failed to appear at a subsequent hearing.

Relief Sought and Procedural History

• Feeling aggrieved by the abolition, Arao first filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commissioner, alleging the removal violated his constitutional right to security of tenure as a civil service eligible with a permanent appointment.
• Without waiting for the Commissioner's decision, on June 21, 1961, Arao filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Oriental, seeking his reinstatement and the payment of his salary from the time he was separated from service.
• On July 3, 1961, the Civil Service Commissioner ruled that the municipal council had the authority to abolish the position for bona fide economic reasons, subject to the department head’s approval.
• The Secretary of Finance, upon endorsement based on Republic Acts 1062, 1063, and 2260 (which provided for local autonomy), concurred that the abolition was within the municipal council’s powers.

The Content and Controversies of the Municipal Council Resolutions

• Resolution No. 62 purportedly abolished the position of municipal clerk; however, its voting record was contested by Arao:

- Three councillors voted in favor. - Two councillors voted against. - Three councillors abstained.

Trial Court Findings and Factual Determinations

• The Court of First Instance found that:

- The functions of Arao’s office were relatively superfluous, light, and simple, and these functions had been absorbed by other existing offices. - The abolition was undertaken in good faith for reasons of economy, with no evidence that it was a subterfuge for a personal or politically motivated removal. - There was no replacement or appointment made to substitute the abolished position. - The allocation of funds in the budget was in accordance with statutory obligations, including salary standardizations under Republic Act 2368, and a reserve was maintained for other municipal purposes.

Appellate Issues Raised by the Petitioner

• Arao challenged the manner in which Resolution No. 62 was passed, arguing that the necessary voting majority per Section 2224 of the Revised Administrative Code was not attained.
• He contended that the true purpose behind the abolition was to remove him from office without cause rather than genuine economic exigency, noting that the accompanying budget resolution provided salary increases for other positions.

Issue:

• Whether the abolition of the municipal clerk position by the municipal council violated Arao’s constitutional right to security of tenure by effectively removing him from office without just cause.
• Whether the passage of Resolution No. 62, with its disputed voting record, complied with the requirements of Section 2224 of the Revised Administrative Code regarding majority vote.
• Whether the subsequent passage of Resolution No. 63, which approved the municipal budget and clearly indicated the abolition of the position, was sufficient to validate the removal of the position from office.
• Whether the act of abolishing the position, even for reasons allegedly of economy, could be construed as an impermissible removal under the constitutional safeguard for civil service employees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)