Title
Canonigo vs. Ramiro
Case
G.R. No. L-26316
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1970
City employees' positions abolished in bad faith; Supreme Court ruled for reinstatement, back pay, and mandamus, holding the city liable for illegal termination.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26316)

Facts:

  1. Appointments and Positions:

    • Antero Canonigo was appointed as a field clerk in the office of the City Treasurer of Ozamiz City on July 1, 1959, with a salary of P1,440.00 per annum. His appointment was later made permanent and approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
    • Beata Morilao was appointed as a regular field clerk on August 17, 1959, with a salary of P1,440.00 per annum. Her appointment was also approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
    • Francisco Artajo was appointed as a market inspector on September 1, 1959, with a salary of P1,800.00 per annum. His appointment was approved despite his eligibility being that of a patrolman.
  2. Change in Administration:

    • In the 1959 elections, Mayor Angel Medina was defeated by Mayor Hilarion Ramiro. Upon assuming office, Mayor Ramiro requested the petitioners to tender their "courtesy resignations" to give the new administration a "free hand." The petitioners refused to resign.
  3. Abolition of Positions:

    • On May 3, 1960, the Municipal Board of Ozamiz City passed Resolution No. 282, abolishing the positions of field clerks and market inspectors. The petitioners were informed of the termination of their services on May 5, 1960.
  4. Subsequent Employment:

    • Antero Canonigo secured employment as a public school teacher starting August 1, 1963.
    • Beata Morilao was employed in the City Auditor's Office starting January 9, 1961.
    • Francisco Artajo remained unemployed after his termination.
  5. Creation of New Positions:

    • After the abolition of the petitioners' positions, the Municipal Board created various new positions and appropriated funds for salaries and improvements.

Issue:

  1. Whether the City of Ozamiz can be compelled by mandamus to recreate positions it had abolished.
  2. Whether the appointments of the petitioners were permanent or conditional.
  3. Whether the abolition of the petitioners' positions constituted removal or dismissal.
  4. Whether the abolition of the positions was done in bad faith.
  5. Whether the decision of the lower court is supported by law.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the abolition of the petitioners' positions was illegal and done in bad faith. The petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and back salaries, and the City of Ozamiz was liable for the payment of these salaries. The writ of mandamus was granted to enforce these rights.


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.