Title
Castillo vs. Pajo
Case
G.R. No. L-11262
Decision Date
Apr 28, 1958
Carmen E. Castillo’s position as a correspondence clerk was abolished by the Bohol Provincial Board in 1954. She contested, citing civil service eligibility, but the Supreme Court upheld the Board’s authority, ruling the abolition valid and her separation lawful.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11262)

Factual Background

Carmen R. Castillo served in her role from November 1951 until her position was effectively abolished on June 9, 1954, as per Resolutions Nos. 161 and 300 of the Provincial Board. Castillo challenged the legality of this action, asserting that the abolition was unlawful due to her civil service eligibility and the disapproval from the Secretary of Finance, which she argued invalidated the Board's actions. She cited the constitutional protection against removal from civil service positions except for just cause.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings

In defense, the respondents contended that the constitutional provision cited did not apply to the abolition of positions but rather to removals for cause. They argued that the Secretary of Finance’s remarks were merely suggestions and did not have the authority to disapprove the board’s resolution. The case was brought before a judge, who dismissed Castillo's action, leading her to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court subsequently certified the case to the Supreme Court for resolution, focusing on the legality of the position's abolition and the implications for Castillo's employment status.

Authority to Abolish Positions

The case hinged on the interpretation of statutory powers concerning the Provincial Board's authority to create and abolish positions. The Board's power to abolish its created positions is rooted in Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows for the administration of provincial government offices. Predicated on established principles of public administration, the authority to create includes the authority to abolish, absent explicit prohibitions in existing laws.

Disproval of Department of Finance

Castillo argued that the Secretary of Finance's disapproval of the resolution rendered it ineffective. However, precedent from Rodriguez vs. Montemayor clarified that such disapproval did not confer authority to void resolutions regarding position abolition by provincial boards. The disapproval by the Secretary was characterized as a mere suggestion and did not hold binding authority to reverse the Board's decisions.

Legislative Developments

The legal context shifted with the enactment of Republic Act No. 1063, which established that future abolitions of such positions would require explicit approval from the Secretary of Finance. However, this act did not retroactively apply to the resolutions in question, as they were already effective prior to the law's passage.

Personal Allegations and Decision Validity

Castillo’s counsel suggested that her separation was motivated by personal animus, stemming from suspicions that she led a petition for salary increases from other low-salaried employees. The Supreme Court noted that the Board’s decision to abolish the position was rooted in administrative needs, and the motivations for such a decision are not typically within the judiciary's purview.

Judicial Interpretation of “Good Fait

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.