[43] Maturan v.
Maglana
GR No. L-52091| March 29, 1982 |Modes and Kinds of Appointment | Wax
Petitioner: TERESO V. MATURAN
Respondents: Mayor SANTIAGO MAGLANA of San Francisco, Southern
Leyte, Vice-Mayor HONORIO MAGONCIA, Municipal Councilors
BONIFACIO AMARGA, JR., ALFONSO ASPIRIN, SR., SIMEON DUTERTE,
SAMSON GAMUTAN, CONSTANCIO ESTAFIA, FELICISIMO BACUS,
VICTOR JATAYNA, SR., JUANCHO MORI, Chief of Police FRANCISCO
DUTERTE, Municipal Treasurer RAMON TOLIBAS and the MUNICIPALITY
OF SAN FRANCISCO, SOUTHERN LEYTE
Recit-Ready Facts:
Petitioner was preventively suspended from his provisional status as police
sergeant but such was subsequently lifted as his criminal cases were dismissed.
When he reported back, the Chief of Police refused to accept him as he in fact
resigned and therefore, the lifting of such suspension is no longer feasible. The
court held that he is no longer entitled to reinstatement as since he was merely
provisional and did not qualify for the position of policeman nor possessed any
civil service eligibility, his appointment was dependent entirely on the discretion
of the appointing power.
Doctrine:
An appointment is entirely discretionary on the part of the appointing power.
What is required when one is dismissed as an appointee is not a reinstatement
but a new appointment.
Application to the case:
Maturan cannot be reinstated to his former post. This is so because he was
not qualified for the position nor was he possessing any civil service eligibility
for any position in the government. Lack of civil service eligibility makes his
appointment temporary and is dependent upon the pleasure of the
appointing power.
FACTS:
1. Tereso Maturan was appointed as patrolman of San Francisco, Southern
Leyte.
He was promoted to the rank of police sergeant, but his appointments were
provisional. These were later on renewed.
2. Mayor Santiago Maglana suspended Maturan from office because of two
pending criminal case against him.
3. Vice-Mayor, then the acting Mayor, instructed Maturan to tender his
resignation pursuant to Letter of Instruction No. 14 of the President of the
Philippines
4. Maturan tendered his letter of resignation and was approved three months
later. He sought the reconsideration of the approval of his resignation for
being null and void on the ground that LOI No. 14 does not apply to him.
5. In the meantime, the two criminal cases were dismissed.
6. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile then Acting Chairman of the National Police
Commission informed petitioner of the dismissal of the criminal cases, and
the preventive suspension has been lifted, and Maturan was directed to
report for duty to his Chief of Police.
7. Maturan reported for duty but Chief of Police Francisco Duterte refused
to accept the former in the police force.
8. Mayor Maglana sent a letter to the Chairman of the National Police
Commission requesting advice as to whether the resignation tendered by
Maturan was valid.
9. The Deputy Executive Commissioner stated that since Maturan resigned
from office, the lifting of his suspension is no longer feasible, the same
having been rendered moot and academic.
10. Maturan filed Petition for Mandamus with claim for back salaries, travelling
expenses and damages. He alleged that the refusal of Mayor and Chief of
Police to reinstate him is a violation of Par. 7 of Presidential Decree No. 12-A
which provides:
” Members of the police force who have been preventively suspended
shall, upon examination be entitled to immediate reinstatement and
payment of the entire salary they failed to receive during the period of
suspension.”
11. Mayor set up the defense in an answer that:
- Maturan has falsely entered in his duly sworn information sheet that he
is a high school graduate of the University of Manila during the school year
1954-55, but in his Personal Data Sheet, CS Form No. 212, dated October 8,
1968 he feloniously alleged and/or entered therein that he is a graduate of the
Pana-on Academy in the school year 1950-51 when in truth he was only a
second year high school student;
- that petitioner, who has voluntarily resigned, needs a new appointment
and has to meet the qualifications required by law among which, are, that
he must be at least a high school graduate and not over 33 years of age;
- that petitioner falls short of these requirements; and that petitioner is
notoriously undesirable, publicly known to be of bad moral character and
oftentimes got drunk while on duty.
12. TC: dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
-The opinion of the National Police Commission is valid –that resignation
submitted by the police force is in compliance with the provisions of LOI No.
13. Since all Maturan’s appointments were provisional, he can be removed at
any time by the appointing power.
ISSUES:
Should petitioner be reinstated? NO
RATIO:
Maturan did not dispute that at the time he was appointed member of the
Police Force of San Francisco, Southern Leyte, he had neither qualified in
an appropriate examination for the position of policeman nor was he
possessed with any civil service eligibility for any position in the
government. Such lack of civil service eligibility makes his appointment
temporary and without a definite term and is dependent entirely upon the
pleasure of the appointing power.
The fact that petitioner subsequently obtained a testimonial eligibility is of no
moment. At the time he received his appointment, petitioner had no eligibility.
As such what is required is a new appointment, not merely reinstatement.
But even then, he cannot compel the Mayor to re-appoint him for the power
to appoint is in essence discretionary and the appointment power enjoys
sufficient discretion to select and appoint employees on the basis of their
fitness to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities of the position
filled.
Relevant Laws/Rules
Par. 7 of Presidential Decree No. 12-A:
” Members of the police force who have been preventively suspended shall,
upon examination be entitled to immediate reinstatement and payment of the
entire salary they failed to receive during the period of suspension.”
Disposition of the Court
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 4, 1975 of the lower court is
hereby affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.