Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22562)
Facts:
Leon S. Pinero, Jesus Samaniego, Silvestre Atanacio, Jose Cabrera, Rufo Cruz, Leonardo Del Rosario, Rizaldo Granada, Epitacio Guevarra, Esmael C. Hernandez, Segundino Manimbo, Daniel G. Mendoza, Celedonio P. Paz, Norberto Santos, Alejandro Sevilla, et al., G.R. No. L-22562, October 22, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners-appellees were thirty-two members of the Port Patrol (Customs Patrol Service) of the Bureau of Customs who, between the first week of December 1962 and the last week of January 1963, were dismissed by the Acting Secretary of Finance and Acting Commissioner of Customs for alleged loss of confidence. With the exception of three, they held permanent appointments and had served from two to twenty-six years; they sought reinstatement and back salaries after their replacements were appointed.
The petitioners filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Case No. 54611) against their replacements, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance and the Customs Auditor to compel reinstatement and payment of back wages. The trial court (Hon. Conrado M. Vazquez) accepted the stipulated facts, held that the incumbents could not be dismissed without cause and due hearing despite claims that their posts were "primarily confidential," and ordered reinstatement with back pay and ouster of their replacements.
The State (respondents-appellants before this Court: Rufino Hechanova, Acting Secretary of Finance; Alberto De Joja, Acting Commissioner of Customs; and the Auditor of the Bureau of Customs, et al.) appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The primary legal controversy concerned whether the Customs Patrol positions were "primarily confidential" such that dismissal for mere lack of confidenc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the members of the Customs Patrol be dismissed for mere lack of confidence, without cause and hearing, because their positions were declared "primarily confidential" by executive pronouncement?
- Do Executive Order No. 397 (1941) and Executive Order No. 94 (1947) vest the Secretary of Finance with discretionary power to remove Customs Patrol officers without the protections of the Civil Service Act?
- Is the action for reinstatement and back salaries a suit against the State barred by sovereign immunity or rendered defective for failure to join the National Treasurer?
- May the appellants raise lack of civil ser...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)