DIGEST/NORIZA JEAN DAGA/MANUEL V. FESTEJO vs. JORGE BARRERAS, ANGEL TORRIJOS, Provincial Branch Manager, PVTA, Abra, EDUARDO BANANAL, General Manager, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, ROSENDO ESTOYE, Treasurer, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, thru the Chairman, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, CSC Manila,

 MANUEL V. FESTEJO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
JORGE BARRERAS, ANGEL TORRIJOS, Provincial Branch Manager, PVTA, Abra, EDUARDO BANANAL, General Manager, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, ROSENDO ESTOYE, Treasurer, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, thru the Chairman, PVTA, Cubao, Quezon City, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, Civil Service Commission Manila, respondents-appellants.

 

Rafael Blanco, Jr. for petitioner-appellee.
Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic, Jr., Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Romualdo Valera, Trial Attorney Pilipina Arenas-Laborte, and Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Augusto M. Amores for respondents-appellants.

G.R. No. L-25074      December 27, 1969

 

Facts:

            On March 13, 1961, petitioner, who is a member of the Philippine Bar and as such, a civil service eligible, was appointed Tobacco Inspector II of the PVTA.  Subsequently, he was permanently appointed PVTA Legal Officer effective January 1, 1963. On July 1, 1963, he was extended another appointment, this time as Assistant Provincial Branch Manager of the PVTA in Abra.  This appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service "under Sec. 24 (c) of Republic Act No. 2260."

Nearly five months after petitioner's such last appointment, the General Manager of the PVTA, respondent Eduardo Bananal informed the said petitioner, in a letter dated November 27, 1963, that his services as Assistant Provincial Branch Manager would be terminated at the close of office hours on December 31, 1963.

In the meanwhile, on December 16, 1963, respondent Barreras, also a member of the bar, was appointed to replace him. This appointment was confirmed by the PVTA Board of Directors under its Resolution No. 355, Series of 1963, and approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service also under section 24 (c) of R.A. 2260 on June 29, 1964, on which date petitioner was still holding office.

Since respondent Barreras assumed office by virtue of said appointment, on July 2, 1964, petitioner instituted a special civil action for quo warranto and certiorari with preliminary injunction in the lower court primarily questioning the legality thereof and seeking to enjoin him from further exercising the duties and functions of the office.

In an order, the lower court denied petitioner's plea for a writ of preliminary injunction, but on September 11, 1964, after conducting a hearing on the merits, it rendered the decision favorable to the petitioner which is now under review.

Respondents-appellants contend that said decision should be reversed because the lower court erred in holding that: (1) "there was no vacancy to which respondent-appellant Barreras could be appointed"; (2) "a non-eligible may not be replaced by another non-eligible"; and (3) "an appointee with provisional appointment cannot be replaced until after 30 days from receipt by the appointing officer of the certification of eligibles."

 

Issue:

            Whether or not services of an appointee to a position in the civil service who is a civil service eligible, although not for the said position, as a "provisional' 'employee, be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority and without his consent.

 

Ruling:

            It is evident that the letter of November 27, 1963 sent by appellant Bananal to petitioner advising him that his services were being terminated as of December 31, 1963 is illegal and cannot have any effect.

Temporary appointment under Section 24 (d) of the Civil Service Act provides: “Temporary Appointment. — A person may receive a temporary appointment to a position needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months, provided that preference in filing such position be given to persons on appropriate eligible lists. And a provisional appointment under Section 24 (c) provides: Provisional Appointment. — A provisional appointment may be issued upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereto to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service, whenever a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service end there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment.

            Whereas a temporary appointment is designed to fill "a position needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months," a provisional appointment, on the other hand, is intended for the contingency that "a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service and there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment." In other words, the reason for extending a provisional appointment is not because there is an occasional work or job to be done which is expected to be finished in not more than six months but because the interest of the service requires that certain work be done or functions be performed by a regular employee, only that there is no one with appropriate eligibility, who can be appointed to do it, hence any other eligible may be appointed to perform such work or functions in the meanwhile, that a suitable eligible does not qualify for the position. This is clearly implied by the mandate of the provision that a provisional appointment may be extended only to "a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service," meaning one who must anyway be a civil service eligible.

            On the other hand, in the case of a temporary appointment, all that the law enjoins is that "preference in filling such position be given to persons on appropriate eligible lists." And merely giving preference, of course, presupposes that even a non-eligible may be appointed. As a matter of fact, under this provision, even if the appointee has the required civil service eligibility, his appointment is still temporary, simply because such is the nature of the work to be done.

            Therefore, the termination of the services of appellee Festejo is illegal.  Correspondingly, the appointment of appellant Barreras cannot stand.