[ G. R. No. 42148. September 04, 1934 ] 60 Phil. 521
[ G. R. No. 42148. September 04, 1934 ]
FEDERICO MATFFCAHAS, PETITIONER, VS. THE BOARD OP REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
BUTTE, J.:
This is a petition for writ of mandamus against the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines in which the petitioner, Federico Mangahas, alleges in substance that the president of the University recommended to the Board of Regents the appointment of Mangahas as temporary. instructor in a communication which is in part as follows:
“(2) To take the place of Professor Thomas for this semester, I recommend the appointment of Mr. Federico Mangahas as temporary instructor, to be paid according to the number of class sections he will be asked to handle. Mr. Mangahas is a Ph. B. graduate, major in English, from this University, at present doing graduate work in the Department, having already completed the academic requirements for his M. A. and will soon take his oral examination for that degree, presenting as his thesis subject ‘Humor in Tagalog Literature.’ He is a veteran newspaperman and columnist, and a regular instructor in English in a private University.”
On June 18, 1934, the Board of Regents adopted the following resolution:
“Upon recommendation of the President the Board approved:
“3. The appointment of Mr. Federico Mangahas as temporary part-time Instructor in English at P60 a month (net), effective upon entrance to duty and to remain in effect until the end of the examination week of the first semester of 1934-35 (Budget item 414).”
On June 19, 1934, as appears from the answer of the respondent, the petitioner was notified of the action of the Board of Regents in a letter which reads as follows:
“MANILA, June 19, 1934
“SIR: I have the honor to inform you that on June 18, 1934, the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines passed a resolution appointing you temporary part-time Instructor in English in the College of Liberal Arts of this University at a salary of sixty pesos (T60—net) a month, effective upon entrance to duty and to remain in effect until the end of the examination week of the first semester of 1934-35, unless sooner revoked by the Board. (Original appointment.)
“Very respectfully, “F. Calderon “Acting President “Attested: “V. LONTOK
“Acting Secretary
“Mr. FEDERICO MANGAHAS “University of the Philippines”
It is stated in the petition that on June 19, 1934, after receiving notice of appointment from the president of the University, the petitioner accepted said appointment and entered upon the duties of said position.
On July 11, 1934, while petitioner was discharging the duties of said position and without hearing or notice to the petitioner, the Board of Regents adopted the following resolution :
“The President called attention to the following resolution of the Board of Regents adopted on March 8, 1928: ‘That no employment shall be permitted which is incompatible with the official duties of the members of the faculty/ and requested action on the case of Mr. Federico Mangahas who was appointed by the Board on June 18, 1934, as temporary part-time Instructor in English, College of Liberal Arts. Upon motion duly seconded the Board resolved to revoke the appointment of Mr. Mangahas, effective July 12, 1934, in view of the fact that said Board considered his connection with the Tribune, a local daily, as a regular columnist as incompatible with his duties in the University of the Philippines in the light of the resolution of the Board of Regents above quoted.”
Petitioner contends that the Board of Regents revoked his appointment as aforesaid without authority of law and in violation of the provision of the Charter of the University of the Philippines—Act No. 1870 as amended by Act No. 2759 which provides:
“SEC. 4. Subsection (e) of section six of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
‘"(e) To appoint, on the recommendation of the president of the University, professors, instructors, lecturers, and other employees of the University, to fix their compensation, hours of service, and such other duties and conditions as it may deem proper, to apply to them in its discretion the Leave Law, any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have been had.’”
If the facts of petitioner’s case fell within the statutory requirement of said section 6, paragraph (e), supra, there is no doubt that mandamus would be the proper remedy. However, the petitioner accepted his appointment as notified to him by the president of the university with the express understanding that the appointment should run for the period specified in the letter of June 19, 1934, unless sooner revoked by the board. That such a right of revocation was reserved is indicated further in the expression “temporary part-time instructor.” The word “temporary” which occurs both in the resolution of the Board of Regents and in the letter of the president must be given some meaning and effect; and we accept the interpretation given to it by the president in his notification to the petitioner in the clause “unless sooner revoked by the board.” This notification appears to be a formal notice, doubtless, similar to that used in all other appointments of temporary instructors in the university. It may be observed that the president is himself a member of the Board of Regents and presumably entirely familiar with its policies and practices. We have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the Board of Regents of the University in making the appointments of temporary instructors revocable at any time by the board and taking this particular class of appointments out from the provisions of section 6 (e) of Act No. 1870, supra. That being so, it is not for this court to question the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Board of Regents in the case of the petitioner. However illogical and unjust it may seem to the petitioner that the Board of Regents on July 11, 1934, found his outside employment to be incompatible with his official duties whereas on June 19, 1934, they apparently accepted it as one of his special qualifications for the appointment, this court can do no more than hold the petitioner to the conditions in the appointment which he accepted.
It is elementary that the petitioner for writ of mandamus must make “a clear showing that he has a substantial right which has been violated. This the petitioner has failed to do and the petition for writ of mandamus must therefore be denied with costs against the petitioner.
Avancena, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad-Santos, Vickers, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.