LACSON v.

ROMERO FACTS: On 1946, Antonio Lacson was appointed provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental by the President (Manuel Roxas). But on 1949, President (Elpidio Quirino) nominated Honorio Romero in Lacson s stead, nominating the latter as provincial fiscal of Tarlac. The nominations of both Lacson and Romero were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (COA). While Romero assumed office, Lacson refused to accept his new appointment and opposed the two court appearances of Romero as the new prosecutor of Tarlac. He asked the judges (Narvasa and Ocampo) to strike from the records Romeros appearances in their courts. But the two judges overruled Lacsons objection, making them fellow respondents in t his quo warranto proceeding. MAIN ISSUE: Whether Lacson has the right to the post of provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and to oust Romero therefrom? YES. The Court upheld Lacsons right to the office by answering sub -issues (as provided below). RATIO: 1.Did the COAs confirmation, without Lacsons acceptance of his nomination, create a vacancy in the post where Romero could be lawfully appointed? NO. There are three steps to appointment: Nomination by the President, confimation by the COA, and acceptance of the nominee. The first two steps constitute a mere offer for the post and are respectively, the acts of the Executive and Legislative department. But the last is necessary to make the appointment complete and effective. Since Lacson declined to accept the new appointment, he continues as fiscal in his old post. No vacancy created. 2.Does the nomination of Lacson to Tarlac and its confirmation by the COA equivalent to a removal from office? YES. To appoint and transfer from one province to another would mean removal and separation from office. The nature of the office of the provincial fiscal falls under civil service laws to be appointed by the President with the consent of COA. 3. Whether the President can, even with the confirmation of COA, remove a provincial fiscal without cause? NO. The (1935) Constitution denies such right, as it provides that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be remove d or suspended except for cause provided by law. The prohibition against removal except for cause in our Constitution has no counterpart in the Federal Constitution of the United States, thus, the American cases cited by respondent are inapplicable. Further, the Administrative Code provides that a provincial fiscal over 65 shall vacate his office, the logical inference is that until he reaches 65 he has the right to continue in office. Furthermore, the Revised Administrative Code provides that before a civil servant is removed, there must first be an investigation where he will be given a fair hearing and opportunity to defend himself. In the case of petitioner Lacson, the record fails to show that he has been charged with any violation of law or regulation or found guilty thereto as to warrant his removal from office. Inasmuch as Lacson neither left, abandoned, nor resigned from his post, there has no vacancy, and consequently, the appointment of respondent is invalid. TRIVIA, in case asked: The SC says: But in justice to the President and the Commission on Appointments, let it be stated once again that it would seem that the transfer of the petitioner to Tarlac was not meant and intended as a punishment, a disciplinary measure or demotion. It was really a promotion, at least at the time the appointment was made, when the salary grade of a provincial fiscal in Tarlac (first class province) is higher than that of Negros Oriental (second class province). Only, that later, due to a change in the category of Oriental Negros as a first class province too, the transfer was no longer a promotion in salary.