View full case

DEOGRACIAS A. REGIS v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for mandamus filed by the petitioner, Deogracias A. Regis Jr., against the respondents to compel them to reinstate him to his former position as a driver in the Motorized Section of the Cebu City Police Department. The petitioner also seeks back salaries from the date of his ouster until reinstatement, as well as payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The material facts of the case are established through a stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, as well as additional evidence presented during the hearing. It is stipulated that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Cebu Police Department on various dates, with corresponding increases in his yearly compensation. However, on April 14, 1964, the petitioner was removed from his position without prior investigation or hearing. The petitioner is a civil service eligible and a fourth-year student in the College of Liberal Arts. After his removal, the respondent City Mayor appointed Eduardo Gabiana, who is not a civil service eligible, to fill the position. The petitioner protested and appealed his removal to the President of the Philippines and the Civil Service Commissioner but has not been reinstated. Further evidence reveals that the petitioner received his civil service eligibility for patrolman-detective on March 8, 1964, and his efficiency rating is the highest among the drivers of the Cebu Police Department. The petitioner attributes his ouster to politics, claiming that he was suspected as a supporter of a political rival of the respondent Mayor. The Civil Service Commission's actions on the petitioner's appointments are also noted.

The petitioner in this case was a temporary driver of the Cebu City Police Department (CPD). He was appointed on four separate occasions - January 8, 1958, January 8, 1960, December 21, 1961, and November 7, 1963. These appointments were all temporary in nature and subject to availability of funds and certain conditions. The petitioner's last appointment on November 7, 1963, was approved under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, subject to availability of funds and Section 20 of the same act. The petitioner's appointment was questioned and he was subsequently removed from his position on April 16, 1964, on the ground that there was "no more need for his service". The petitioner argued that his removal was not justified as he was a civil service eligible, having passed the patrolman-detective civil service examination and that his removal was done without due process. The petitioner also claimed that his last appointment was provisional and not temporary as classified by the lower court. The petitioner further argued that as a member of the Cebu City Police at the time of his removal, his separation from service should have been done under a different law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's appointment was temporary or provisional in nature.

  2. Whether the petitioner's removal from service can only be done under R.A. No. 557.

  3. Whether a provisional appointment may be extended to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service.

  4. Whether a provisional appointment may be terminated after 30 days from receipt of the appointment of a civil service eligible.

  5. Whether the petitioner's dismissal was illegal

  6. Whether the petitioner should be reinstated

  7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to back salaries

RULING:

  1. The trial court erred in categorizing the petitioner's appointment as temporary or provisional in nature. There is a clear distinction between a temporary appointment and a provisional appointment. Temporary appointments are covered by Section 24(d) of R.A. No. 2260, while provisional appointments are governed by Section 24(c) of the same law. The trial court either confused the two or considered them synonymous. The petitioner's appointment was actually provisional, as he had not yet qualified in an appropriate examination but met the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service.

  2. The petitioner's removal from service cannot only be done under R.A. No. 557. This provision only allows the City Mayor to prefer charges and not remove a member of the Cebu City Police. The petitioner's removal should be governed by the appropriate rules and procedures under the Civil Service Act.

  3. Yes, a provisional appointment may be extended to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service. It is implied by the provision that a provisional appointment may be extended 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." However, a temporary appointment may be given to a non-eligible and does not require that the appointee meet the qualifications for a regular position.

  4. No, a provisional appointment may only be terminated after 30 days from receipt of the appointment of a civil service eligible. Prior to the receipt of the eligibility certificate, the provisional appointment remains valid and may only be terminated for cause as provided by law. The reason that there is "no more need" for the appointee's service is not a valid cause for termination. The termination must be based on lawful grounds.

  5. Yes, the petitioner's dismissal was illegal.

  6. Yes, the petitioner should be reinstated to his position or any position of equivalent rank, subject to certain conditions.

  7. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to back salaries for a period of five (5) years without deduction or qualification, with interest at the legal rate from the date of his illegal dismissal until the same has been fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • There is a distinction between temporary appointments and provisional appointments, as they each contemplate different situations.

  • A provisional appointment may be issued when 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.

  • A temporary appointment is designed to fill a position needed only for a limited period not exceeding six months, while a provisional appointment is intended for situations where the interest of the service requires certain work or functions to be performed by a regular employee, but there is no suitable eligible to appoint at that time.

  • The removal of a member of the Cebu City Police should be governed by the appropriate rules and procedures under the Civil Service Act, and not solely under R.A. No. 557.

  • A provisional appointment may be extended to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service.

  • A temporary appointment may be given to a non-eligible without requiring the appointee to meet the qualifications for a regular position.

  • A provisional appointment may only be terminated after 30 days from receipt of the appointment of a civil service eligible.

  • A provisional appointment may only be terminated for cause as provided by law. The reason that there is "no more need" for the appointee's service is not a valid cause for termination.

  • Provisional appointments made or approved by the Civil Service Commission prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 6040 shall automatically become permanent appointments. (Section 18 of R.A. No. 6040)

  • Illegal dismissal warrants reinstatement of the employee.

  • Back salaries may be awarded for a limited period of time, usually five (5) years, in cases of illegal dismissal.