Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
G.R. No. 88498 June 9, 1992
 
GENEROSO R. SEVILLA,
petitioner,vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERITO L. SANTOS,
respondents.
 GRIÑO-AQUINO,
J.: 
 
May an officer who was appointed to an office in an "acting" capacity, bring
a quo warranto 
action against the permanent appointee to the position?The petitioner has been in the government service since 1949. His last appointmentwas last Assistant City Engineer of Palayan City which he discharged until he wasdesignated
Acting City Engineer 
of Cabanatuan City by President Ferdinand E. Marcoson May 2, 1981. He unhesitatingly assumed the latter position and discharged itsfunctions and responsibilities until "People Power" and the EDSA Revolution intervened.The subsequent twists and turns in his professional career are recited in the decisiondated May 31, 1989 of the Coourt of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP No. 14489 as follows:The advent of the 1986 Revolution and the 1987 Freedom Constitutionspelled changes and upheavals particularly within the Career CivilService. On August 18, 1986, the then Officer-in charge (OIC Mayor) ofCabanatuan City, Cesar Vergara, appointed defendant-appellant Santosas city engineer of Cabanatuan City, and on August 28, 1986, defendant-appellant Santos assumed the position of city engineer. On that very sameday, a memorandum informing petitioner-appellee Sevilla of theappointment of defendant-appellant Santos was sent by then OIC Mayor.As petitioner-appellee Sevilla was on leave at the time, the memorandumwas received on his behalf by Anita de Guzman, the administrative officerof the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Office ofCabanatuan City, where petitioner-appellee Sevilla also holds office.A few months later, or on November 14, 1986, petitioner-appellee Sevillawas designated by then Minister Rogociano Mercado of the MPWH asacting district engineer of Pasay City. Petitioner-appellee Sevilla served inthat capacity until he was removed from that office of the new Secretary ofthe DPWH on February 3, 1987. This was what precipitated the presentcontroversy.Petitioner-appellee then returned to Cabanatuan City. On March 27, 1987,he filed a petition for
quo warranto 
against defendant-appellant Santos,which was docketed as Civil Case No. 879-134 (AF) before the RegionalTrial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27. On January 29, 1988, thelower rendered the impugned decision reinstating petitioner-appelleeSevilla and entitling him payment of vacation and sick leaves for theduration of his absence. The dispositive part of that decision reads:WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered for petitionerand against the respondent, to wit:
 
a. Ousting and excluding respondent Nerito Santos from theposition of City Engineer;b. Declaring petitioner Generoso Sevilla as the personlawfully entitled to hold aforesaid position; andc. Declaring petitioner Generoso Sevilla as entitled topayment of vacation and sick leave during the period he wasprevented from rendering service by reason of this case. (pp.53-54,
Rollo 
.)On August 18, 1986, the OIC Mayor of Cabanatuan City, Cesar Vergara, appointedNerito L. Santos as the new city engineer of Cabanatuan City. Santos assumed theposition on August 28 1986. On the same day, a memorandum was addressed toSevilla informing him of Santos' appointment as city engineer of Cabanatuan City. Anitade Guzman, administrative officer of the Department of Public Works and Highways(DPWH) unit in Cabanatuan City received the notice for Sevilla who was on leave onthat time.On November 14, 1986, the Minister of Public Works and Highways, RogacianoMercado, designated Sevilla as
Acting 
District Engineer of Pasay City. He served in thatcapacity for a little over two months or until he was removed on February 3, 1987 by thenew DPWH Secretary, Jesus Jayme, forcing him to return to the Cabanatuan CityEngineer's Office which, however, was already occupied by Nerito Santos.On March 27, 1987, Sevilla filed a petition for
quo warranto 
against Santos. It wasdocketed as Civil case No. 8795-134 (AF) in the Regional Trial Court of CabanatuanCity
—
Branch 27. On June 8, 1987, the complaint was amended to include a petitionfor
mandamus 
against the new OIC Mayor Evangelina Vergara, butthe
mandamus 
petition was dismissed by the trial court, which proceeded to hearthe
quo warranto 
petition only.In his
quo warranto 
petition, Sevilla argued that, being the presidential appointee, hecould not be removed from office by an OIC mayor. And, even supposing that the OICmayor had such authority, his (Sevilla's) separation from office was illegal because noneof the grounds for the separation/replacement of public officials and employees set forthin Section 3 of Executive Order No. 17 dated May 28, 1986, was cited to justify thetermination of his service. Section 3 of E.O. No. 17 provides:Section 3. The following shall be the grounds for separation/replacementof personnel:1. Existence of the case for summary dismissal pursuant to Section 40 ofthe Civil Service Law;2. Existence of a probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act as determined by the Ministry Head concerned;3. Gross incompetence or inefficiency in the discharge of functions:4. Misuse of public office for partisan political purposes:
 
5. Any other analogous ground showing that the incumbent is unfit toremain in the service or his separation/replacement is in the interest of theservice.On January 29, 1988, the lower court rendered a decision reinstating Sevilla as actingCity Engineer of Cabanatuan City with right to payment of vacation and sick leaves forthe duration of his absence (pp. 26-34,
Rollo 
).Santos appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 14489) allegingthat:1. Sevilla has no legal standing to bring an action for
quo warranto,
because hisdesignation to the disputed position was in an acting capacity only:2. his acceptance of another position in Pasay City precludes him from filing a
quo warranto 
action; and3. the OIC mayor had legal authority to appoint Santos as city engineer.In a decision dated May 31, 1989 (pp. 53-57,
Rollo 
), the Court of Appeals set aside thelower court's decision and entered a new one, dismissing the petition for
quo warranto.
The Court of Appeals held that by accepting another office. Sevilla in effectvoluntarily surrendered his former office, and was thereby precluded from maintaininga
quo warranto 
action against Santos. When he accepted the position in Pasay City, helost his right to the position in Cabanatuan City. The Court ruled that Santos'appointment was valid because it as confirmed by Minister Rogaciano Mercado of theMinistry of Public Works and Highways.Sevilla filed this petition for review alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:1. in not applying the provisions of Executive Order No. 17;2. in not considering his appointment as acting city engineering ofCabanatuan City as a specie of permanent appointment covered by civilservice security of tenure and outside the doctrine enunciated in
Austria vs. Amante 
(79 Phil. 790) cited by the respondent court as basis of itsdecision; and3. in declaring that he "voluntarily surrendered his former office," (p.1,
Rollo 
) instead of finding that he merely complied with the memorandumof the Minister of Public Works and Highways assigning him in Pasay City.The petition is devoid of merit.An "acting" appointment is merely
temporary,
one which is good only until anotherappointment is made to take its place (Austria vs. Amante. 79 Phil. 784). Hence,petitioner's right to hold office as "
Acting 
City Engineer of Cabanatuan City" was merelytemporary. It lapsed upon the appointment of Nerito Santos as the
permanent 
cityengineer of Cabanatuan City on August 18, 1986.Petitioner was the incumbent city engineer of Palayan City when he was designated asActing City Engineering of Cabanatuan City. There is a difference between anappointment an
appointment 
and a
designation.
Appointment is the selection by theproper authority of an individual who is to exercise the functions of an office.Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition of additional duties,
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more