Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35703)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Maximiano Ata, Paulino J. Banoc, Doloroso M. Ipanag, Anastacio B. Sales, Pedro B. Japos, Luis Pait, and Geronimo Taculad, who were members of the police force of Valencia, Bohol. They were granted provisional appointments as patrolmen by the Municipal Mayor on various dates between 1963 and 1967. At the time of their appointments, none of the petitioners possessed civil service eligibility or met the minimum qualifications set forth by the Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act No. 4864). On January 23, 1968, Reinerio S. Namocatcat, the incumbent Mayor, issued Office Memorandum Order No. 4, terminating the services of the petitioners. Despite this termination, the petitioners continued to serve until January 27, 1968, receiving salaries only up to January 15, 1968. Believing their termination was unlawful and politically motivated, the petitioners filed an original petition for Mandamus and Quo Warranto against the Mayor, Municipal Treasurer, and Chief...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35703)
Facts:
Appointments of Petitioners:
- Petitioners were members of the police force of Valencia, Bohol, appointed as patrolmen by the Municipal Mayor on various dates between 1963 and 1967.
- None of the petitioners possessed civil service eligibility or met the minimum qualifications under the Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act No. 4864).
Termination of Services:
- On January 23, 1968, Mayor Reinerio S. Namocatcat issued Office Memorandum Order No. 4, terminating the services of the petitioners.
- Petitioners continued to serve until January 27, 1968, but were paid only up to January 15, 1968.
Legal Action:
- Petitioners filed a petition for Mandamus and Quo Warranto on February 28, 1968, alleging that their termination was illegal and politically motivated.
- The trial court dismissed the case against newly appointed patrolmen, as they were appointed to new positions, not as replacements.
Trial Court Decision:
- The court ordered the reinstatement of three petitioners (Pedro B. Japos, Luis Pait, and Geronimo Taculad) with backpay, declaring their termination illegal.
- The termination of the other four petitioners (Maximiano Ata, Paulino J. Banoc, Doloroso M. Ipanag, and Anastacio B. Sales) was upheld as legal, but they were entitled to salaries for the period they continued to serve.
Appeal and Certification:
- Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which later certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Nature of Appointments:
- The appointments of the petitioners were temporary, as they lacked civil service eligibility and did not meet the minimum qualifications under the Police Act of 1966.
- Temporary appointments do not confer security of tenure and can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
Police Act of 1966:
- The Police Act mandates that appointees to the police force must possess specific qualifications, including civil service eligibility or at least the general qualifications under Section 9 of the Act.
- Petitioners did not meet these qualifications, making their appointments invalid.
Administrative Construction:
- The Police Commission’s Memorandum Circular No. 6, which required the termination of provisionally appointed police officers who did not meet the minimum qualifications, was given considerable weight by the Court.
Legislative Intent:
- The Police Act aims to professionalize the police force and ensure efficiency. Compliance with its qualifications is mandatory, not directory.
Judicial Review:
- The Court deferred to the factual findings of the trial court, as the case was elevated purely on questions of law.