Basilio Pineda vs Jovito Claudio

written by Howard

G.R. No. L-29661 – 138 Phil. 37 – 28 SCRA 334 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – Appointment in Vacancies of Local Offices (Chief of Police) Not Ministerial

In 1968, the Chief of Police of Pasay City died. Then Mayor Jovito Claudio appointed State Prosecutor Francisco Villa as the replacement. The Deputy Chief of Police, Basilio Pineda, assailed the appointment of Villa as he claimed that he has preferential rights over Villa because he is next in line. Pineda’s position is supported by the Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido who held in abeyance the appointment of Villa. Subido further stated that according to the Civil Service Act as well as in a previous Supreme Court decision (Millares vs Subido, August 10, 1967), in filling up vacancies in local offices the order of priority is as follows:

  1. Promotion (next in rank)
  2. Transfer (lateral movement)
  3. Reinstatement/Reemployment
  4. Certification (usually certified outsiders)

That in case the next in line cannot be promoted due to “special reasons”, only then can someone be promoted in the subsequent order of transfer, reinstatement, or certification. Subido pointed out that Claudio did not provide a special reason why he chose Villa over Pineda.

Claudio replied by stating that Pineda’s track record shows that he was not able to solve the sagging inefficiency of the local police organization.

The DOJ Secretary supported Claudio’s position and he pointed out that in as far as filling up a vacancy in the police department is concerned, what governs is the Police Act of 1966 and in said law, it is provided that it is within the mayor’s discretion as to who he should appoint to said office.

ISSUE: Whether or not Pineda, as Deputy Chief of Police, has a preferential right to the said public office.

HELD: No. The ruling in the Millares case is not conclusive because such case has different circumstances. It must be clarified though that as far as practicable, in case of a vacancy, the next in line shall be promoted by the appointing authority. But if not, the vacancy may be filled either by transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification – not necessarily in that order. There is no rule which states that the mayor must appoint the next in line. It is not his ministerial duty to do so nor is it mandatory. The appointing power can choose whether to appoint by promotion, transfer, reinstatement, or certification (as what Claudio did in this case). It is necessary for effective public administration that the mayor appoints men of his confidence, provided they are qualified and eligible, who in his best estimation are possessed of the requisite reputation, integrity, knowledgeability, energy and judgment. After all, it is the local executive, more than anyone else, who is primarily responsible for efficient governmental administration in the locality and the effective maintenance of peace and order therein, and is directly answerable to the people who elected him.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the only time that an appointing power is required to provide specific reasons on why a next in rank is not appointed is that if the appointing power chose promotion as the method to fill up the vacancy. (This is illustrated if say, there are two next in rank persons and the person lower in rank is chosen instead of the other higher in rank).

Read full text.