Case Digest : JESUS T. GESOLGON, et al vs. ARSENIO H.

LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila, MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as Treasurer of the City of Manila and JOSE ERESTAIN, as Auditor of the City of Manila, respondents-appellants FACTS: Petitioners were members of the Manila Police Department. The respondents, on the other hand were the incumbent Mayor, Treasurer and Auditor for the City of Manila. The respondent mayor dismissed the petitioners from service on July 1952. The petitioners filed a case beforet the CFI to question their dismissal. CFI then ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered reinstatement of the latter in their respective offices sometime between 1955 to 1956. As to their salary rates, upon petitioners reinstatement, they received the same rates with that prior to their dismissal. Meanwhile, during the time the petitioners were dismissed from service, the mayor approved Ordinance No. 3538 which provided for the city budget for the fiscal year 1952-1953. Such also included salary increases to all members of the Manila Police Department and promotional appointments to majority of the MPD police force effective February 1, 1953. On September 1955, another ordinance (Ordinance No. 3667) was approved by the same mayor providing again for further increase in the salaries of the MPD and promotional appointments to some of its members. Unfortunately, the petitioners were not able to enjoy the benefits of these ordinances as they continued to receive the same rate they had prior to their dismissal. There were, however 5 of those who were included in the dismissal and subsequently reinstated, who were granted with the increase in pursuant to Ordinance No. 3667 in 1956. On August 1958, petitioners formally demanded from respondent mayor the payment to them of the salary increases under the two ordinances, but were later on denied. This caused the petitioners to file for the issuance of a writ of mandamus as against the respondent mayor to extend to them the promotional appointments provided by the two ordinances. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent mayor committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to extend promotional appointments to the petitioners and that whether mandamus would lie to compel him to grant such demand. RULING: Supreme Court held that the respondent mayor exercised a grave abuse of discretion and petitioners are therefore entitled to the promotional appointments. An appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act, involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. Discretion, however, is not a blanket authority for its abusive exercise. In the case at bar, the records showed that promotional appointments were extended to others who either had a pending case or against whom there were records of administrative charges subsequently dropped. It also showed that even respondent mayor did not consider dismissed charges an impediment to promotion. In fact, promotions were given to two policemen, who, along with petitioners, had been illegally dismissed but subsequently reinstated, and who subsequently received the rates established in the present salary scale. The circumstances under which petitioners have been refused promotional appointments show discrimination. Promotions in the civil service, while a discretionary function of the appointing power must never be based on considerations alien to the fitness of the employee and his performance of his job as shown by records. What clearly reveals the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of respondent mayor's conduct is his refusal or failure to give any plausible reason for denying increased salaries to petitioners who are civil service personnel. Thus, where the palpable excess of authority or abuse of discretion in refusing to issue promotional appointment would lead to manifest injustice, mandamus will lie to compel the appointing authority to issue said appointments.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: 1. In the practice being followed In the Philippine Civil Service with regard to an increase in the salary appropriated for a position, the following statements are true: a. It should automatically entitle the holder of the position to such increased salary since this increase may have possibly been effected because of the greater importance or responsibility attached or to be attached to the recreated position. b. The fact that an employee holds that position does not necessarily imply that he is fully entitled or qualified to receive the increased salary provided for.

c. Enjoyment of an increased salary attached to an item is regarded as an absolute right. d. all of the above. 2. In the exercise of discretion of an appointing official, the following are true EXCEPT: a. The discretion of the appointing authority is primarily based on the choice of the person who is to be appointed and not in the nature and character of the appointment intended. b. The CSC is empowered to change the nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer; its authority is not limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law. Even if the appointee is qualified and all the legal requirements are satisfied, the CSC has the discretion to refuse the appointment. c. Where the palpable excess of authority or abuse of discretion in refusing to issue promotional appointment would lead to manifest injustice, mandamus will lie to compel the appointing authority to issue said appointments. d. none of the above