Facts:

The case involves Luciano Azur and Nicolas Bulalacao (petitioners-appellants) against the Provincial Board, Provincial Treasurer, Provincial Auditor, and the Provincial Warden of Camarines Sur (respondents-appellees). The legal proceedings began with the filing of a complaint on March 17, 1960, in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 4871). The petitioners, who were provincial guards, had each held their positions for a continuous period exceeding five years when they were notified via Resolution No. 16 of the Provincial Board that their positions were abolished effective January 15, 1960. Shortly after, on January 30, 1960, this resolution was amended by Resolution No. 45, reducing the number of provincial guard positions from 45 to 35, purportedly for economic reasons; however, it lacked the approval of the Secretary of Finance. The petitioners alleged that their dismissal was politically motivated rather than financially based. They claimed they were c

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Plaintiffs-Appellants Luciano Azur and Nicolas Bulalacao, both provincial guards in Camarines Sur, claimed they had held their positions continuously for more than five years.
• They alleged that they secured their posts through a qualification examination held at Naga City and were in legitimate and stable service despite the controversy over their appointments as temporary employees.

Alleged Acts Leading to the Complaint

• On or about January 15, 1960, the plaintiffs were officially notified by the Provincial Board’s Secretary that their positions had been abolished, the effective termination being indicated by a communication that “thirty (30) days thereafter their work is already terminated.”
• The abolition was effected by Resolution No. 16, Series of 1960, later amended by Resolution No. 45 on January 30, 1960, purportedly “to economize” by reducing the number of provincial guard positions from forty-five (45) to thirty-five (35).
• Plaintiffs contended that the amendment had not been approved by the Secretary of Finance and was therefore ineffectual, and that the real motive behind the abolition was political—to replace them with persons aligned with the new provincial administration.
• It was further alleged that five (5) new provincial guards were hired and subsequently separated to conceal the actual intent of replacing the petitioners.

Nature of the Claims and Relief Sought

• Plaintiffs claimed that although they continued to render service from February 15, 1960, they were not paid because defendants compelled them to submit resignations and clearances.
• The complaint sought:
• Reinstatement of the petitioners.
• Separation from service of the five newly appointed provincial guards, whose appointments were claimed to be illegal.
• Payment of back salaries until a legal separation occurred.
• Award of P600.00 as attorney’s fees and P6,000.00 in moral damages.

Defendant’s Position and Proceedings

• Defendants-Appellees (the Provincial Board, Provincial Treasurer, Provincial Auditor, and Provincial Warden) admitted to the employment and subsequent dismissal of the petitioners, as well as the approval of Resolutions 16 and 45.
• They advanced several affirmative defenses:
• The allegation that the petitioners were still rendering service implied they had not vacated their posts and, therefore, had no right to reinstatement.
• The petitioners had not exhausted all available administrative remedies.
• The abolition of the positions was legal and authorized by Republic Act No. 2260.
• Being temporary employees with appointments terminating after three (3) months unless reappointed, they argued that the petitioners’ claims for reinstatement were devoid of legal basis.
• Pre-trial proceedings involved a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action, which was sustained by the trial court based on the contradictory allegation that the petitioners were still on active duty.

Precedential and Administrative Aspects

• The trial court reasoned that the continuous rendering of service implied that the petitioners were not separated from their positions, thereby nullifying their claim for reinstatement.
• Reliance was placed on the temporary nature of their appointments, citing the principle that such appointments could be terminated at will.
• The petitioners later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting the present appeal.

Issue:

Sufficiency of the Complaint

• Whether the allegations in the petition, if accepted as true, constitute a sufficient cause of action entitling the petitioners to the reliefs prayed for.

Impact of Contradictory Allegations

• Whether the allegation that the petitioners continued to render service (and thus were not separated) negates their claim for reinstatement.

Applicability of Statutory and Constitutional Protections

• Whether the petitioners, as temporary employees with more than five years of continuous service, were entitled to security of tenure under the Civil Service Law.
• Whether the abolition of their positions for politically motivated reasons violates constitutional or statutory protections.

Administrative Remedies

• Whether the petitioners were required to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial relief, and if so, whether an exception applies when the act is patently illegal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)