G.R. No. L-7662 - Cometa vs. Andanar

On October 1, 1953, the President of the Philippines created the municipality of Sapao, in the province of Surigao, under the authority of section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code.
On the same day, the petitioner, Maximino Cometa, was appointed as municipal mayor of Sapao by the President.
The petitioner qualified for the office by taking the oath on October 7, 1953, and thereafter assumed the full duties and functions of the mayoralty.

Around February 8, 1954, the petitioner was removed from office allegedly without just cause, as no charge of malfeasance had been filed against him.
The removal was effected by the designation and appointment of Wenceslao Andanar as acting mayor.
The letter of designation for the respondent was signed by the Executive Secretary under the President’s authority.
The petitioner’s inquiry regarding the specific cause of his removal, communicated in a letter to the Executive Secretary, was left unanswered.

The respondent argued that under section 10 of Republic Act No. 180, appointments made by the President are temporary and discretionary, being at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

He contended that the petitioner’s status was provisional, and that he could be removed at will until a successor was elected or appointed by law.

The respondent further claimed that the eventual replacement of the petitioner was also supported by:

A unanimous resolution of the municipal council on February 1, 1954, which purportedly ousted the petitioner.
The general demand and support from the inhabitants of Sapao, as evidenced by a petition dated April 1, 1954, presented to the President.

States that when a new political division is created, its elective officers shall, unless provided otherwise, be chosen at the next regular election.
Provides that, in the interim, the President may fill the elective offices by appointment, which, if done, implies that the holder remains in office until the next regular election.

Mandates that officials elected in the regular elections assume office on the first day of January following the election.
Emphasizes that such officials hold office for four years or until their successors are duly elected and qualified.

The court noted that the petitioner’s appointment was intended to last until the next regular election, not as a mere temporary or acting capacity appointment.

The removal of the petitioner via the designation of the respondent lacked any substantiated legal or justifiable cause.
The municipal council's resolution and the public petition did not legally empower the respondent to remove an incumbent mayor.
There was no evidence indicating that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered or relinquished his office.

Whether the removal of the petitioner from office by way of the designation and appointment of the respondent as acting mayor was legally valid.

Does the statutory scheme of Republic Act No. 180, particularly sections 7 and 10, allow for the removal of a duly appointed mayor without cause?
Is the interpretation of the appointment as “temporary” justified, or should the office be considered as held until the next regular elections?

Whether the municipal council’s resolution and the petition by the inhabitants of Sapao could legally justify the removal of the municipal mayor.

Can a resolution by a municipal council or the voices of the residents substitute for the legal process required for removal of an elected or appointed official?

Whether the respondent’s assertion that the appointment was at the pleasure of the President and therefore subject to removal without cause holds merit under the law.