Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9724)
Facts:
The case involves Tomas B. Berva as the petitioner and appellant against the City Mayor and City Treasurer of Naga City, who are the respondents and appellees. The events leading to the case began on April 14, 1953, when Tomas B. Berva was appointed as a detective in the Naga Police Force and Fire Department by Mayor Leon Sa. Aureus, with a compensation of P1,140 per annum, effective April 16, 1953. Prior to this appointment, Berva worked as a clerk-typist in the office of the Social Welfare Council of Naga. It is important to note that Berva did not possess civil service eligibility, which rendered his appointment temporary in nature. On January 31, 1954, City Mayor Antonio P. Sibulo relieved Berva from his position in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. Following his dismissal, Berva communicated with the Executive Secretary on February 2, 1954, requesting the commutation of his vacation and sick leave, which was granted, and he received payment ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9724)
Facts:
Appointment and Position:
- Tomas B. Berva was appointed as a detective in the Naga Police Force and Fire Department by Mayor Leon Sa. Aureus on April 14, 1953, with an annual compensation of P1,140, effective April 16, 1953.
- Prior to this appointment, Berva worked as a clerk-typist in the office of the Social Welfare Council of Naga.
Civil Service Eligibility:
- Berva lacked civil service eligibility, making his appointment temporary in nature. His appointment was never approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
Termination of Service:
- On January 31, 1954, Berva was relieved from service by City Mayor Antonio P. Sibulo in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Post-Termination Actions:
- On February 2, 1954, Berva requested the commutation of his vacation and sick leave, which was granted, and he was paid for 54 days of service.
Legal Action:
- On August 18, 1954, Berva filed a petition against the City Mayor and City Treasurer of Naga City, seeking reinstatement as a detective effective February 1, 1954, and payment of back salaries from that date.
Respondents' Defense:
- The respondents argued that Berva was a temporary employee due to his lack of civil service eligibility and was legally dismissed under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Lower Court Decision:
- The court of first instance of Camarines Sur dismissed Berva’s petition, upholding the respondents' contention.
Issue:
- Whether Tomas B. Berva, as a temporary employee without civil service eligibility, was legally dismissed under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code.
- Whether Berva’s appointment could be considered permanent despite his lack of civil service eligibility, based on the yearly salary stated in his appointment.
- Whether Republic Act No. 557, which requires just cause and proper investigation for dismissal, applies to Berva’s case.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that:
- Berva’s appointment was temporary due to his lack of civil service eligibility.
- His dismissal was legal under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows the replacement of temporary employees after three months from their appointment.
- The yearly salary stated in his appointment (“per annum”) did not make his appointment permanent but was included for budgetary purposes.
- Republic Act No. 557 and the doctrines in Uy vs. Rodriguez and Olegario vs. Lacson do not apply to Berva’s case, as those cases involved permanent appointments, whereas Berva’s appointment was temporary.
Ratio:
Temporary Appointments:
- Only civil service eligibles are entitled to permanent appointments. Since Berva lacked civil service eligibility, his appointment was necessarily temporary.
Legal Basis for Dismissal:
- Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code allows the replacement of temporary employees after three months from their appointment. Berva’s dismissal was therefore legal.
Yearly Salary and Permanent Appointment:
- The phrase “per annum” in Berva’s appointment does not confer permanency but is used for budgetary purposes.
Applicability of Republic Act No. 557:
- Republic Act No. 557, which protects employees from dismissal without just cause and proper investigation, applies only to permanent appointments. Since Berva’s appointment was temporary, the law does not apply to his case.
Precedents Distinguished:
- The rulings in Uy vs. Rodriguez and Olegario vs. Lacson are inapplicable because those cases involved permanent appointments, whereas Berva’s appointment was temporary.