Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12536)
Facts:
Concepcion G. Briones, et al. v. Sergio Osmeña, Jr., G.R. No. L-12536, September 24, 1958, the Supreme Court, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were long‑time employees in the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu: Concepcion G. Briones, a first grade civil service eligible, appointed Clerk‑Stenographer in 1937 and thereafter promoted and held permanent status; and Faustino O. Rosagaran, a second grade civil service eligible, employed since 1940 and promoted to Administrative Officer (he had been publicly declared a "Model Employee" in 1955).On January 5, 1956, the Municipal Board, acting on a letter from Sergio Osmeña, Jr. as City Mayor, adopted Resolution No. 21 creating 35 new positions in the Mayor’s office with appropriations for salaries and office expenses. On February 14, 1956 the Municipal Board approved Ordinance No. 192 abolishing 15 positions in the City Mayor’s office (and 17 in the Municipal Board), and the Mayor approved the Ordinance on February 20, 1956. The positions occupied by petitioners were among those abolished.
The Mayor gave petitioners written notice that their services would terminate effective March 15, 1956. Petitioners protested by letters and refused to relinquish their posts pending action by "higher competent authorities or courts." When the Mayor persisted and the City Treasurer and Auditor refused to pay salaries after March 16, 1956, petitioners filed an action for mandamus with damages in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu to have the abolition declared void and to obtain reinstatement and back salaries.
The CFI ruled for petitioners, declaring the abolition void for lack of the Department Head’s approval required by a Provincial Circular of April 3, 1954 and by Executive Order No. 506 (s. 1934), and ordered reinstatement with back pay and costs. Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondents argued inter alia that Executive Order No. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the requirement of prior approval by the Department Head (as stated in Executive Order No. 506, s. 1934 and the Provincial Circular of April 3, 1954) still operative or constitutionally applicable to local legislative abolition of positions?
- Had petitioners exhausted available administrative remedies so as to justify judicial relief by mandamus?
- Was the abolition of petitioners’ positions bona fide, or was it a pretextual removal violating the security of civil service tenure, thereby entitl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)