Facts:

In the case of Teofilo Arcel and Juan Calinawan vs. Sergio Osmena, Jr., et al., the events unfolded on March 15, 1957, when the petitioners, Teofilo Arcel and Juan Calinawan, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which included a request for a preliminary injunction and damages, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The objective was to compel the mayor, city municipal board, city treasurer, and city auditor of Cebu City to reinstate them to their respective positions—Arcel as a Watchman and Calinawan as a Skilled Laborer—and to pay their back salaries. The background involved a series of terminations due to the enactment of Ordinance No. 220, which approved a budget that reduced the total number of watchmen and effectively abolished the positions held by the petitioners. Teofilo Arcel had been appointed as a watchman by Mayor Vicente S. del Rosario in 1947 and had seen his salary adjusted over the years, eventually reaching P4.00 per day in 1952. Juan Calinawan had similar

...

Facts:

Petition and Appointments

• On March 15, 1957, petitioners Teofilo Arcel and Juan Calinawan instituted a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and/or damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
• The petition sought:
• The reinstatement of petitioner Arcel to the position of Watchman in the Office of the City Treasurer.
• The reinstatement of petitioner Calinawan to the position of a skilled laborer.
• Payment of back salaries.

Background of Service and Appointments

• Teofilo Arcel, a USAFEE veteran of the Second World War:
• Initially appointed as an unclassified Watchman in the Office of the City Treasurer effective January 4, 1947, with a wage of P2.00 per day.
• Had his wage increased to P2.70 per day effective July 1, 1951.
• Received a further wage increase to P4.00 per day effective July 1, 1952, in compliance with the Minimum Wage Law.
• Juan Calinawan similarly was serving under the government, having been insured since July 1, 1952.

Ordinance No. 220 and Reduction of Positions

• On December 1956, Ordinance No. 220 was enacted and approved as part of the General Fund Budget of Cebu City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1957.
• The ordinance reduced the total number of Watchmen:
• From the previous allocation of two Watchmen at P4.00 each per day under the Office of the City Treasurer.
• To one Watchman, designated under Item No. 40 with a compensation of P1,440.00 per annum.

Issuance of Termination and Removal Orders

• On January 5, 1957, petitioner Arcel received a termination order dated December 31, 1956, while Calinawan received a similar order dated December 29, 1956.
• The orders stated that due to the abolition of their positions pursuant to Ordinance No. 220, their services were terminated effective at the close of office hours on December 31, 1956.
• Petitioners immediately pleaded with Mayor Sergio Osmena, Jr. to reconsider and withdraw the orders, but the Mayor refused.

Subsequent Appointments and Actions

• On January 10, 1957, while still in government service, the petitioners received appointments:
• Arcel was offered an appointment as Clerk-Collector in the Office of the City Treasurer, Municipal License Section, effective January 1, 1957, with compensation at P1,440.00 per annum. The appointment was clearly temporary and subject to revocation.
• A separate appointment was issued on December 29, 1956, designating Catalino Lanete as Watchman in the Office of the City Treasurer under Item No. 40 for the 1956-57 budget.
• The respondents (City Treasurer and City Auditor) consequently halted the payment of petitioners’ salaries.

Lower Court Decision

• The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on several grounds:
• The Municipal Board of Cebu held the authority to reduce or abolish positions.
• No evidence indicated fraud or abuse of power in the exercise of such discretion.
• Petitioners were not civil service eligibles.
• The City of Cebu, deemed an indispensable party, was not included in the complaint.
• There was non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, notably in not bringing the Mayor’s action to the President’s attention.

Appeal by Petitioner

• Only Teofilo Arcel appealed through a petition for certiorari, contesting the lawfulness of his dismissal from the service.

Issue:

Authority and Limits of the Municipal Board

• Whether the Municipal Board’s authority to reduce or abolish positions under its charter (Civil Service Act) was exercised within legal bounds.

Scope of Civil Service Protection for Unclassified Employees

• Whether petitioner Arcel, although not classified as a civil service eligible, was still protected under the civil service law given his unclassified appointment.

Lawfulness of the Dismissal and Subsequent Appointments

• Whether the dismissal of petitioner Arcel from his permanent position was lawful.
• Whether the subsequent temporary appointment as Clerk-Collector by the Mayor constituted a valid substitution for his original permanent post.

Procedural Issues Raised by the Respondents

• Issues concerning the non-inclusion of the City of Cebu as a party in the petition.
• The failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing the petition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)