ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

MATURAN vs MAGLANA
GR No. L-52091
March 29, 1982
The Civil Service
Appointments p. 79 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)
FACTS: Petitioner Tereso Maturan is a police sergeant at San Franciso, Southern Leyte. He got
promoted from being a patrolman (February 1965) to a police sergeant (September 1972) through
appointments which were provisional. His provisional appointment was annually renewed for the
span of seven years including respective increase in the salary.
Respondent Mayor Maglana suspended Maturan on September 1972 because of two pending cases
against him(1. Falsification of public document by making untruthful statement in the narration of
facts and 2. Falsification of public document).
A month after, respondent Vice Mayor Magoncia who was then the Acting Mayor instructed Maturan
to tender his resignation pursuant to the Letter of Instruction No. 14 of the President of the
Philippines. Maturan submitted his letter of resignation on the same month. The resignation was
approved on January 19, 1973 and petitioner was accordingly informed thereof.
Days after, his case on falsification of public document by making untruthful statement in the
narration of facts was dismissed. On November of that same year his other case was also
dismissed.
A month after Maturan sought to have his resignation rendered null and void for on the ground that
Letter of Instruction No. 14 does not apply to him.
Given that criminal charges against him were already dismissed, the NaPolCom chairman stated
that the preventive suspension is lifted and he could go back to work. However, the Chief of Police
refused to accept Maturan.
Hence, he appealed to the court. He filed for a claim for back wages and reinstatement. The lower
court denied the claim ruling that his appointment was provisional and he can be removed at any
time by the appointing power.

ISSUE: Can Maturan be reinstated to his position as police sergeant?

RULING: NOPE.
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

ADMIN
Atty. Bruce P. Rivera
CASE DIGEST

civil service eligibility makes his appointment temporary and is dependent upon the pleasure of the
appointing power.
When he was appointed as patrolman and as a police sergeant, he had no eligibility. It does not
matter if he gained eligibility subsequently or during his post; this does not apply to his provisional
temporary appointment. Gaining civil service eligibility while actively serving his appointment does
not make his temporary appointment automatically permanent; it does not follow. Upon his
appointment, he had no eligibility and that should apply until the end of his temporary appointment.
What is required is a new appointment and not merely a reinstatement. Also, the Mayor cannot be
compelled to appoint him for such power of the Mayor is discretionary.

ADMIN
Atty. Bruce P. Rivera
CASE DIGEST

TUPAS vs NHC
173 SCRA 33
May 4, 1989
The Civil Service
Right to Self-Organization p. 151 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)

FACTS: Petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS, for brevity) is a
legitimate labor organization with a chapter in NHC. Respondent National Housing Corporation is
a government owned or controlled corporation.
TUPAS filed a petition so that they may be allowed a certification election with Regional Office No.
IV of the Department of Labor. Such petition was dismissed by med-arbiter Jimenez holding that
NHC "being a government-owned and/or controlled corporation its employees/workers are
prohibited to form, join or assist any labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining
pursuant to Section 1, Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code."
The dismissal was appealed by TUPAS at the Bureau of Labor and the dismissal was reversed
granting them the right to conduct a certification election among members of the union. However,
the order was set aside by Officer-in-Charge Virgilio S.J. Sy in his resolution of November 21,
1978.

Hence, TUPAS filed for a instant petition for certiorari seeking for the reversal of the resolution and
praying that they may be granted a certification election.
ISSUE: Can TUPAS, known employees of a government-owned or controlled corporation, be
granted the certification election?
RULING: YES! They can duly have their certification election!
Their case is the exception to the rule. Their case served as a medium for the Supreme Court to
clarify that EVEN EMPLOYEES OF GOCCs have the right to self-organization under the Labor
Code. This is the case because National Housing Corporation DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL
CHARTER. National Housing Corporation was organized as a subsidiary of government-owned or
controlled corporations under the general corporation law, it does not have an original charter.
Given that the Supreme Court clarified that even employees of GOCCs without original charters may
avail themselves of the right to self-organization under the Labor Code, the resolution was duly
reversed and the prayer for a certification election was granted for they are within their rights. Also, it
was stressed in this case that those employed in GOCCs with original charters may also have the
right to self-organization on the basis of civil service laws, particularly EO No. 180.