The case at bar, titled Beofnato Atay and Eusebio Yamuta vs. Diego H. Ty Deling, et al., was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 30, 1960, under G.R. No. L-14580. The petitioners, Beofnato Atay and Eusebio Yamuta, sought relief from an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, presided over by Hon. Patricio C. Ceniza, who dismissed their petition for mandamus with damages. The petition was initially filed on December 13, 1957, claiming that Beofnato Atay had been appointed as a janitor guard in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Occidental on May 16, 1956, and that Eusebio Yamuta held a promotional appointment as a private provincial guard in the Office of the Provincial Warden effective July 1, 1957. The core of their complaint revolved around actions taken by governmental authorities wherein Atay was directed on September 18, 1957, to cease his service effective September 16, 1957, while Yamuta was similarly informed
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14580)
Facts:
Appointment and Status of Petitioners
Beofnato Atay
- Appointed as janitor-guard in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Occidental effective May 16, 1956.
- Held a temporary appointment as evidenced by the attached appointment (Annex "A").
- Appointed as a private provincial guard in the Office of the Provincial Warden of Misamis Occidental with a promotional appointment effective July 1, 1957.
- Appointment confirmed by documentary evidence (Annex "B").
Alleged Acts Leading to Removal
Issuance of Termination Orders
- Atay was directed on September 18, 1957, by the respondents’ Provincial Governor and Provincial Treasurer to cease his services effective September 16, 1957 (supported by Annexes "C" and "D").
- Yamuta received a directive from the Assistant Provincial Warden on July 15, 1957, instructing termination effective the next day; however, due to misunderstanding, he continued reporting for duty until September 16, 1957, when the respondent Provincial Warden clarified his cessation of service (Annex "E").
- Petitioners alleged that their removal was not for cause as defined by law, and that it was executed without any preceding hearing or investigation, in violation of constitutional and civil service provisions.
- They maintained that from their appointment to dismissal, they rendered faithful, satisfactory, and continuous service without any administrative or criminal charges.
- Petitioners further claimed that, following their removal, they were denied due salaries and that their positions were replaced by other appointees of the respondent Provincial Governor.
Relief Sought and Procedural History
Relief Sought by Petitioners
- Petition for mandamus with damages seeking the declaration that their removal was illegal and void.
- Prayer for reinstatement to their former positions with entitlement to back salaries from the time of removal.
- Request for payment of attorney’s fees and exemplary damages amounting to P10,000, besides other reliefs.
- Respondents moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the petition failed to demonstrate eligibility for civil service protection, relying on prior decisions (e.g., Orais v. Ribo and others) that allow removal at will for non-eligible temporary appointees.
- The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition on July 30, 1958, basing its decision on precedents including Palagod v. Torres, and subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting the appeal.
Applicable Statutory Framework
Legal Basis of Appointment
- Despite being part of the classified civil service, the positions held by petitioners are temporary in nature, governed by Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.
- The temporary appointments are subject to a maximum duration of three months unless extended only until such time as an eligible candidate is appointed.
- The appointments and removals occurred before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 2260 (the new Civil Service Law), making the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code controlling in this matter.
Issue:
Primary Issue
Whether the removal of petitioners was lawful under the Revised Administrative Code.
Secondary Issue
Whether the non-eligibility and temporary nature of the petitioners’ appointments exempted them from the usual due process protections (such as the right to a prior hearing) typically afforded to civil service employees.