Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14956)
Background Facts
On March 15, 1957, the petitioners filed a mandamus petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu after having received termination orders on January 5, 1956, due to the abolition of their positions as provided in Ordinance No. 220. Both petitioners were originally appointed to their roles before the ordinance and both had served in the city government for several years. Following the budget reduction, the respondents filled the abolished positions with a new appointee, Catalino Lanete.
Legal Proceedings and Stipulated Facts
The case proceeded with a stipulation of facts highlighting the sequence of events leading to the termination and subsequent appointment of a new watchman. The trial court dismissed the petition on several grounds, including the authority of the Municipal Board of Cebu to reduce position counts, the lack of evidence indicating any wrongdoing in these actions, and the assertion that petitioners were not civil service eligibles. Additionally, the court noted that the City of Cebu was not included as a party to the case.
Court's Reasoning on Civil Service Classification
The appellate court reviewed whether the termination of Teofilo Arcel was lawful, noting that the Municipal Board has the authority to reduce positions, yet must adhere to civil service laws. It was determined that despite not being classified as civil service eligibles, employees in unclassified positions are still protected under the civil service provisions. The court found that Arcel, having a longer service and veteran status, should have been considered for the new position instead of the newly appointed watchman.
Analysis of Temporary Appointment
The respondents argued that Arcel was offered a temporary position as Clerk-Collector, which he refused, claiming it demonstrated a lack of abuse of discretion by the Mayor. The court countered that the appointment was temporary and contingent on the Mayor’s discretion, and that accepting it could have undermined Arcel's challenge against his original termination.
Inclusion of the City of Cebu
Regarding the absence of the City of Cebu as a party in the petition, the court noted that including the Mayor and other officials sufficed for substa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14956)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and/or damages filed by Teofilo Arcel and Juan Calinawan against Sergio Osmena, Jr., in his capacity as Mayor of Cebu City, along with the municipal board, treasurer, and auditor.
- The petitioners seek reinstatement to their respective positions as watchman and skilled laborer and claim unpaid back salaries following their termination.
Background Facts
- Teofilo Arcel was appointed as a Watchman in the Office of the City Treasurer of Cebu on January 4, 1947, with a starting salary of P2.00 per day, which increased over time to P4.00 per day by July 1, 1952.
- Juan Calinawan was also serving in a similar capacity and was insured under the government service.
- On December 4, 1956, the Municipal Board approved Ordinance No. 220, which reduced the number of watchmen from two to one, effectively abolishing Arcel and Calinawan's positions.
- Both petitioners received termination orders from Mayor Osmena, effective December 31, 1956, citing the abolition of their positions as per the new ordinance.
Legal Proceedings
- After their termination, the petitioners requested Mayor