Title
Booc vs. Osmena, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. L-14810
Decision Date
May 31, 1961
Temporary employee dismissed for misconduct; SC upheld dismissal, citing lack of permanent status, failure to exhaust remedies, and lawful termination.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14810)

Facts:

  1. Employment History:

    • Lazaro Booc was employed in various capacities (e.g., General Carpenter Foreman, General Bridge Foreman) in the Office of the City Engineer of Cebu since January 8, 1947.
    • His last appointment was as General Bridge Foreman from July 1, 1956, to September 30, 1956, at a daily wage of P7.50.
  2. Dismissal:

    • On August 27, 1956, Booc was dismissed by the City Mayor for dishonesty and serious misconduct, specifically for soliciting and accepting wage cuts from subordinates.
    • The dismissal was effective immediately, with a notation that further investigation would determine criminal liability.
  3. Protest and Investigation:

    • Booc protested his dismissal, claiming he was not given a chance to be heard and that the Mayor lacked authority to dismiss him, as he was an unclassified Civil Service employee.
    • An investigation revealed that Booc was caught receiving money from a subordinate, which he claimed was repayment of a debt. Witnesses testified in his favor, but the investigating officer found prima facie evidence against him.
  4. Appointment Terms:

    • Booc’s appointment as General Bridge Foreman was temporary, with a notation that employment would cease automatically at the end of the period or due to rotation, transfer, or layoff at the City Engineer’s discretion.
    • The project he worked on had limited funds, further indicating the temporary nature of his position.
  5. Legal Proceedings:

    • Booc filed a petition for mandamus to compel his reinstatement, payment of back wages, and damages.
    • The Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed his petition, ruling that his employment was temporary and that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Temporary Employment:

    • Temporary employees, whose positions depend on project-specific funds and are subject to rotation, transfer, or layoff, do not enjoy the same protections as permanent employees. Their employment can be terminated at the end of the period or at the discretion of the appointing authority.
  2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

    • Before resorting to judicial action, an aggrieved party must exhaust all available administrative remedies. Booc failed to appeal his dismissal to the proper department head, rendering his petition for mandamus premature.
  3. Authority to Dismiss:

    • The City Mayor had the authority to dismiss Booc, as his temporary appointment did not grant him permanent status or the protections of the Civil Service Law.
  4. Mandamus Not Applicable:

    • Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. Since Booc’s dismissal was lawful and his employment temporary, there was no duty to reinstate him.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.