Supreme Court Decisions, Manalang vs. Quitoriano, et als - Justice Conception.pdf · Rare Periodicals

Supreme Court Decisions, Manalang vs. Quitoriano, et als - Justice Conception.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: yet so much of the decision of the Director of Landa as re. lates to a question of law is in no sense conclusive upon the c.om·ts, but is subject to r eview. In other w<.1rds, :i.ny acl'ion of the Director of Lands whfrh is based upon a misconsh neA removal implies that the office exists after the ouster. Such is no\: the case of petitioner ~erein, for Republic Act No. 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau and, by implication, the office o.f director thereof, which petitioner held. tion o! the Jaw can be correct<!d by the c'>urts." <Shepley v. Cowan (1876], 91 U.S., 330; Moore '" Robbins (1878], 96 U.S. 3. 530; ·Marquez vs. Frisbie [1879], 101 U.S., 473; Black v. JackCONSTITUTION_.\L LAW; ABOLITION OF BUREAU EX. TINGUISHES RIGHT OF INCUMBENT TO THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR THEREOF; NO VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE ON CIVIL SERVICE. - Where the law expressly abolished t~e Placement Bureau, by implica. tion, the office of direcCor thtoreOf, which cannol exist without said Bureau, is deemed abolished. By the i1bolitio11 of said Bure:i.u and of the office of its director, tho right thereto of petitioner w:i.s necessarily extinguished thereby, There bc·ing no removal or suspension of the petitioner, but r.bolition of his form~r offic~ of Director of the Placement Bureau, which is within the !JOWer of Congress to underl'ake by legislation, the: constitutional mandate to the effect that "no officer or emplo)'·ee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except' for cause as 1irovided by law" is not violated. son {1900], 177 U.S., 349; Johnson v. Riddle, supra .) Wherefore, the decision :i.ppcaled from is reversed. ThE: court sets a.side the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated Se11tember 15, y949 as well as his order dated January 3, 1950, reaffirming eaid d~i1'ion. Thf' court i~vives the decision of t'he Director c,f Lands dated March 18, 1948 end orders that it be given due course. No pronouncement as to costs Bengz<m, .Montemayor, Jugo, Labrador and Concepcion, J.J., conMr. Justice Alex. Reyes took no pal't. PARAS, C.J. , dissent'ing: 4. ID.; ID.; TRANSFER OF QUALIFIED PERSONNEL FROM ONE OFFICE TO ANOTHER. - Where the law abolishing the l'lacement Bureau explicitly provided for the transfer, amon2' others, of the· qualified p~rsonnel of the lati:er to the National Employment Service, such transfer co:motes th2t the National Employment Service is different: and Jisti11ct from the Placement Bureau, for a thing may be transf,'ned only from one place to another, not t<' the same place. Had Congrf'ss Intended the National Employment Service to be a mere am. plification or enlargement of the Placement Bureau, the law would have directed the retention of the "qualified personnel" of l'he latter, not theii· transfer to the former. It is true that Maximo Alfafara was granted on F:ebruary 1, 1923, a permit to construct and mamtain a fishpond within lot No. 741 of the Carcnr cadasCre, but it nevertheless appears that said permit was cancelled in 1P26 after said fishpond was destroyed by a typhoon. In said year, Maximo Alfafara induced the -respondent Benita Campnna, et al. to convert the former fishpond into a riceland, t.'he agreement h-1ing that the crops for the first three years would be for said respondents and that thereafter the crops would be divided equally bdween the former and the latter. According t.o the findings of t.'he Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resource.s, not contradicted in any way by those of the Director of Ltmds, M:axin10 Alfe.fara and his SUct'.essorS-in-interest 5. ID.; ID.; NECESSITY OF NEW A"PPOINTMENT; EFFECT 11ever worked on the land or spent, anyt'hing for the impt'ovements ON RIGHT OF INCUMBENT TO THE OFFICE. - Where, thereon. The question tha.t arises is, after the land was declared as it is :i.dmittcd by petitioner, there is necessity of appointing available for homestead purposes by certification of the Director Commissioner of the Nati<:n'a! Employment Service, it follows of Forestry in 1949, or Jong after the permit of Alfafara had been tha~ he does not hold or occupy the latter's item, inasmuch as cancelled, whether the Alfafaras should be preferr.:d to those who the right thereto may be ac(]uired only by appointment. :;!::~~ ';.~~=;:r:n c!~:e!a~:· h~~~te:n~he r~;:tce~l:t::tho:ri~~s t~er:~t: 6. ID,; SCOPE OF TERM "QUALIFIED PERSONNEL". - tinue holding th'-! land. Yet, he was given for several years one If the Director of the Placement Bureau were includ~d in the halC of the crop harvested by the respondents who took over the phrnse "qualified personnel" and, as a. consequence, he autoJand in good faith and could already occupy it in their own right. matically became Commissioner of the National· Employment ~f :~~ :~~~}t:!;;:;::::,::;;:',::~::Y1~~~'.p~~:;:~;;;~!:~::]!:!: :15::~:::~~~:,::!~[:!~~~~t~::,:rE:,:";~: i:T,'!~;·:;:~: 1 ,f their priority to the portion of the land actually held by t.hem "qualified personnel" of the Placement Buurea.u "upon th as a homestead. 1t apptia.rs, however, t'hat there were occ-.iptmts organization of the Service." which connotes that the new of other portions of the lot who did not apply for hQmesteads, with office would be established at some future tir.i€. In common the res'.llt that said pcrt'ions may be awarded to the A!fafaras parlance, the word "personnel" is used generally to refer to if they are still entitled thereto under the law. the subordinnte officials '>r dP.rical employees of an office or enterprise, not to the managers, directors or heads thereof. I vote for the affirmance of t:he appealed dP.cision. Concurro con esta disidencia. (Flo.) G1dllermo F. Pablo VIII Luis Manalang, Petition~r. vs. Aurelio Quitoriano, Emiliano Morabe, Znsimo fJ. Linafo, and Molmmad de Venan.cfo, Respondents, G. R. No. L. 6898, April 30, 1954, Concepcion J. 1. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; REMOVAL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. - Where the petitioner has never beon commissioner of the National Employment Service, he could not have been, and h:\s not been, removed t'hel'efrom. 2. ID.; lD.; ABOLITION OF OFFICE. - To 1·emove an officer is to oust him from his office i;efore the expiration of his term. 7. ID.; PUBLIC OFFICERS; POWER OF CONGRESS TO APPOINT COl\IMISSIONER OF NATIONAL EMPLOYMEN'f SERVICE; APPOINTING POWER EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF PRESIDENT; LIMIT A TIO NS ON POWER TO APPOINT. - Congress can not, either appoint the Commissioner of the Service, or impose upon the President the duty to appoint eny particular person to said office. The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, upon which no limitations m:i.y be imposed by Congress, except those' l'esult'ing from the need of securing the concurrence of the Commission on Appointments and !tom tho? ex('rcise of the limited legislative power t'o prescribe the qualifications to a given apµointlve office. 8. ID.; ID.; RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVANT DOES NOT GRANT COURT POWER TO VEST IN .ffJM LEGAL TITLE; DUTY OF COURT. - Petitioner's r€cord as a public servant - no matter hc,w impressive it may be as an ur&ument in favor of his consideration for appointment either '.IS Commissioner or as Deputy Commissioner of the Nat.'ional Employn1tnt Ser416 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL August 31, 1954 vice - is a matter which should be addressed to the appointing powei-, fo the exercise of ifs " sound judgment ar\d dlscreiiOn, and - dofis nof stiff ice to " gr3nt the ·coUrt, -whose · dtitY is merely t(" apply t-he Jaw, the power to vest in him a legal title which he does not have. Lufa Jlfcmalaiig in his ·owii behalf. , Solicitor Get1eral Jua11 [,iwag and Assistant Solwito,. General Francisco Carre<111 for the Respondents. DECISION CONCEPCION, J.; Petitioner Luis Manalang contests, by quo warra:<ito proceedingi-;, the title of the incumbent Commissioner of the Nationt.i Bmµloyment Service, and seeks t'o take possession of said officl! as the perso:i allegedly mtitlerl thereto. The original respondent was Aurelio Quitorianv, who, at the time of the filing of the petition <August: 4, 1953l, held !'aid office, which he assumed on July 1, 1953, by virtue of a tlesignatior madf', in his favor, as Acting Commissioner of the Natio1:al Employment Service, by the Office of the President' of the Ph1iippines. Subsequently, or on October 22, 1953, petiti('lner includ2d, as rupond'°nts, emiliano Morabe, who, on Septenw<>r 11, 1953, was d%ignated A<"ting Commissioner of National Employml'nt Servici:!, and Zosimo G. Lina to, \'he Cotlecting. Disbm·sing and Property Officer of said Natfonal Employnvmt Service - hereinaf!er referred to, I'or the s ke o': brevity, as the Service - in order to restrain him from pe.yirig, to respondent Morabe, th~ salary of i.he Commissioner of said Service. Still la.l'er, or on January 21, 1954, l\fohamad de Yenuncio, viho wf!s drsignated Acting Commissioner o! said Service, and assumed said office, on January 11 and 13, res11ectively, of the same year, was included as respondent. It appears that, prior to July 1, 1953, and for some time prior thereto, petiticllJer Luis Manalang, was Director of the Placement Bureau, an office created by Executive Order No. 392, d=.ted December 31, Hl5U (46 Off. Gaz. No. 12, pp. 5{)13, 5920-5921), avowedly pursuant to the powers V"estcd in the President by Republic Act No. 422. Ort June 20, 1952, Republic Act ~o. 761, 12nth1ed "An Act To "Provide For the Organization Of A National Employment Service," was approved and })(:came effecth-e. Section 1 thereof partly provides: "x x x In order t.'o ensure the best possible organization of the employment market as an integral part of the national program for the achievement and maintenance of maximum employment and the development and use of produ..:iive r1:som·ces, thm·e is hereby established a national system of free pubiic employment office.<:" to be known ?.!! the Natic.nal Employment Service, hereinafter referred t.'o 2s the ServicP., ThP. Service shall be under the executive supervision and control of the Department of Laber, and shall have a chief who shall b? known as the Commissioner (If th( National Employment Service hereinafter 1·eferred to as C<"'mmissioner. Sa.id Commissioner shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the ctmsent of the Commission on Appointments and shall l"eccive compensation at the rate of nine thousand pesos per annum. A Deputy Commissioner shall also be appointed by thf' Preside~t of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission on Appointments and shall receive compensa.tion at the rate of seven thousand two hu,,!1-dred pesos per annum." On June 1, 1953, the then Sec?"etary of Labor, Jose Figuuer:ts, recommended the appointment of petitioner Luis Manalang as Commissioner of lhe Service. On June 29, 1953, re<:1po:ident Aurelio Qui\'oriano, then Acting Secreta~·y uf Labor, made a simi:ar recom~ mendation in favor of Manalang, upon the ground that " he is best qualified" and "lvyal to service and &dministratio:i. 0 S:iid Acting Secreta1y of Labor even informed Manalang that he would pr?bably be appointed to the office in question. However, on July 1, 1953. Quitoriano wa3 the one designa.ted anJ sworn in, as Acting Commissioner of the Service. Such designation of Quitoriano - like the subsequent designation, first, of Emiliano Morahc, and, then, of Mohamad de Venancio - is now assailed by Manalang as "illegal" and ···•equivalent to removal of the petil'ioner from offi<'e without caUse." · ·· · This pretense can not be sustained. To begin with, petitioner has never hP-en Commissioner of the National Employment: Service and, hence, he could not have been, and has not been, removed therefrom. Secondly, to remove an officer is to oust him from office before the expiration of his term. A removal implies that 1.'he office exists after the oustel". Such is not the case of petitioner hc·rein, for Rcpuhlic Act No· . 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau, and, by implication, the office of director thereof, which, obviously, cannot exist without sa.id Bureau. By the abolit.ion of the latter and of said office, the right theret:o of its incumbent, petitioner herein, was necessarily ex:inguished thereby. According!~·. Hie co11stit11tion~I mandate to the effect tha~ "no officer or employee in the civil service shall be remov1:d or suspended except for cause as provid«d by l:.w" <Art -XII. Sec. 4, Phil. Conflt. ), is not: in point, for there has been neither a removal nor a suspension of pctit:.mer l\lanabng, but an abolition of his former office of Director of the Plucement Bureau, which. admitt'edly, is within the power of Congres~ to undertake by legislation. It is argut:d, however, in petitfoncr's memora'ldum, that "x x x there is no abolition but: only fading away of the title Placement Bureau and all its functions are. continued by thr National Employment Servi<'P l:iecanse the twv titles cannot coexist. The seemingly additional duties we-re only brought about by the additional facilities like the district offices, Employment Service Advisory Co'J.ncils. etc." The question whether or not Republic Act. Ne. 761 abclished the Placement Bureau is rme of le~isla1ive intent:, &bout which there can bo no controversy whatsoever, in view of the exµlicit declaration in the second paragraph of Section 1 of said Act reading: "Upon the orga.nizatfon of the service, the existing Place. ment Bur12au and the existin!! Emrloyment Office in the Comm1s1-::>n of Social Welfare shall be abolished, and all the files, H•ccrds, supplies, equipment, qualified pe1sonnel and unexpendC?d balances of appropriations of said Bureau and Commissicn pertaining tu said bureau or office shall thereupon be transferred t'o the Service." lUnJerscoring supplied.) Incidentally, this transfer connotes that the National Employment Service is different and distinct from the Placement BurPau, ior a thinq may be transferred only from one plac:! to another, nnt to the same place. Had Congress i:1t.ended t'he National Employment Service to be a mere amplification or enlargement of the Placement Bureau, Republic Act No. 761 would have directed the retention of \.~te "qualified personnel" of the latter, not their transfer to the former. Indeed, the Service includes, not only tho functions pertaining to the former Employment Office in the Commission of Social Welfar<', apart from other powers, not pertaining \.O either office, enumerated in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 761. Again, if the absorption by the Service of the dutiea of the Placement: Bureau, sufficed to justify the conclusion that the former and the latter are identical, then the Employment Office in the Com. mission of Sociel Welfare, would logically be entitl<:d to make the same claim. At any ra~e. any Possible doubt, on this point, is dispelled by the fact that, in his sponsorship speech, on the bill which Inter bec::ime RC!public Act No. 761, Senator Magalona said: . . "Como ya he dicho al caballero de Rizal, esta es una nueva ofi.cina que 1.~cne su esfera de accicn distinta de la de cualquiera de la;; d:visianes de la Oficina de Trabajo. Adcmas, come he dicho, es muy importante la crcacion de esta oficina, porque con e'la se trata de buscar remedio para esos dot millone.s de desempleados filipinos que hay ahora." lVol. 111, Congressional Recocd, Senate, No. 56, April 2~, l952; underscoring supplied.) 1t is next urged -in petitioner's rnemoranduum "that t'he item of National Employment ServicE' Commissioner ia nol· new and is ocrupied by the petitioner" and t:hat the petitioner is· entitled to said A11gust 31, 1954 T THE" LAWYERS JOURNAL 417 office "automatically by operation of law," in view of the above quoted provision of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 761, relative to t'he transfer to the service of the "qualified pcrsvnnel" of the Placement Bureau and of the Employment Office in the Commission of Social Welfare, This contention is inconsistent with the very allegations of petitioner's pleadings. Thus, in paragraph 11 of his petition, it is alleged "that incrensing the item and elaborating the title of a civil servant, although 11ecessitaHng a ntw appo·int:nie11t, does not mean the ousting of the incumbent or declaring the it~m vacant." In paragraph 12 of the same pleading, petitioner averred that "on or about June 25, 1953, two days before the departure of President Quirino to Raltimore, petitioner wrote a confidential memorandum to his Excellency reminding him of the necessity of appointing anew the petitfoner a.s head of the National Employment Service." Having thus admitted - and correctly - that he needed a new appointme11t as Commissioner 'Of the National Employment Service, it: follows that petitioner does not hold - or, in his own words, occupy - the latter's item, inasmuch as the right thereto may be acquired only by appointment. What is more, Republic Act No. 761 1·equires specifically that' said appointment be ma.de by the President of the Philippines "with the consent of the Commis~ion on Appointments." How could the President and the Commission on Appoint. ments perform t'hese acts if the Director of the Placement Bureau automatically became Commissioner nf the National Employment Service? Neither may petitioner profit by the provision of the second paragraph of Section 1 of Republic Act: No. 761, concerning the transfer to the Service of the "qualified perso.1nel" of the Pia.cement Bureau and of the Employment Office in the Commission of Social Welfare, because: 1. Said transfer shall be effected only "upon t:hc organization" of the National Employment Service, which does n.:>t take pluc.:i until after the appointment of, at least:, the commissioner thereof. If the Director of the Placement Bureau were included in the phrase "qualified persnnnel" and, as a consequence, he automatically became C(lmmissioner of t he. Service, the latter would have become org1i.nized simultaneously with the approval of Republic Act No. 761, and the same would not have conditioned the aforementioned transfer "upon the organization '>f the Service," which eonnot:es that the new office would be established at some future time. Indeed, in common parlance, the word "personnel" is used ger1erally to refer to the subordinate officials ;)f clerical employees of an office or enterprise, not' to the managers, directors or heads thereof. 2. If "qualified personnel" included the heads of the offices affected by the establishment of the Service, then it would, also, include the chief of the Employment Office in the Commission of Social Welfare, who, following petitioner's line of a•gument, would, like petiCioner herein, be, also, a Commissioner of the National Employment Service. The i·esult would be that we would have either two commissioners of said Service or a Commission thereof consisting of two persons - instead of a Connnissiner - and neithe1· alternative is countenanced by Republic Act No. 761. 3. Congress can not, either nppoint the Commissioner of the Service, or impose upon the President t'he duty to appoint any particular person to said office, The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, upon which no limitations may be imposed by Congress, except those resu\Cing from the need of securing the concunence of the Commission on Appointments and from the exercise of the limited legislative yower to prescribe the qualifications t'.o a given appointive office. Petitioner alleges in paragraph 2 of his petition, which has been admitted by the respondents: ''That he started as clerk in 1918 in the Bureau of Labor by reason of his civil eervice second gr~de eligibility; t'hat he was appointed public de~ender, lncharge of the Pampanga Agency, in 1937 likewise, as a result of hh1 civil service public defender eligibility and has successively held the positions of Chief of Social Improvement Division, Senior Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Labor, Chief of t'he Wage Claims Division, Attorney of Labor Oncharge of Civil Cases), Chief of the Administrative Division, Chief of the Labor Inspection Division and Director of the Placement Bureau, also under the Department of Labor." The many years spent by petitioner in the service of the Government have noC escaped the attention of the Court. For this reason, we have even considered whether or 'not he should be held entitled to the position of Deputy Commissioner of the National Employment Service, which carries a compensation of P7,200.00 per annum, ident'ical to that of Director of the Placement Bureau. However, it is our considered opinion that we can not make said finding, not only because the office of Depufy Commissioner of the National Employment Service is beyond the pale of the issues raised in this proceedings, which are limited to the position of Commissioner of said Service, but, also, because the reason militating against: petitioner's claim to the latter position, apply equally to that of Deputy Commissioner, At: any rate, petitioner's record as a public servant - no matter how impressive it may be as an argument in favor of his consideration for appointment either as Commissioner or as Deputy Commissioner of the Service - b a matter which should be addressed ti> t'he appointing power, ih the exercise of Its sound judgment a.nd discretion, and does not suffica to grant the Court, whose duty is merely to apply the law, the pnwer to vest in him a legal t'itle .which he does not have. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed and the writ prayed for denied, without cost.'s. Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo nnd Labrador, J.J .. concur. Mr. Justice Padilla did not take part. M:ONTEMA YOR,J. concurring: I fully concur in the learned opinion of Mr. Justice Concepcion. Its legal consideration$ and conclusions are based on and supported by the !av.: which sometimes is harsh Cdura lexJ, as it now has turned out to be with respecr to petitioner. Considering all the circumstances surrounding this case, I am cnnvinced, and froni what I could gather from the discussion during our deliberations, even my 1·espected colleagues or many of them, a.gree wii'h me that all the equities are with the petiticner. He fully and truly deserved a high and important office in the National Employment Service. Not only did he, for many years, prepare himself for the special and technical service to direct or assist direct t'he functions nnd activities of the National Employment Service, by his previous training and experience, hut: the Government itself prepared him for said service by sending him abroad to study and observe social legislation and employment, and later on his return even had him assist in the drafting of the very legisfotion that: abolished his office of Director of Placement Bureau and created the National Employment Service. There is eve;y reason to believe t'hat at the time, petitioner was intended to he&d the new office or at least, be one of its chief officials, and he was given that understanding and expectation. Unfortunately, howe\•er, thru a quirk of Fate and at the lost hour, he was not appointed. Result - he lost his chance; and what is worse, he lost his civil servic!'. post which wsi; abolished, a.II thru no fault on his part. This short concurring opinion is never intended to embarrass or serve as a reflection on the appointing power, par~icularly the present administration, which is not to blame. If a suitable post, preferably in his line, could be found for Peti.tioner, a wrong would be righted, the harshness of the law softened a.nd tempered, and t'he 1riterests of justice and equity served. Chief Justice Paras and Justke Brmti4ta Angelo, concur. 418 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 'August 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights