CD Asia Technologies, Inc.

back history my queries bookmarks

search
help
my account
log out

print
highlights off
cross-reference on
cited in
add bookmark
decision
syllabus

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20977. September 7, 1968.]

JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE

SABILLANO, defendant-appellant.

Pablito Pielago for plaintiff-appellee.

Valentin O. Boncavil for defendant-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1.POLITICAL LAW; CIVIL SERVICE; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES;

CLAIM FOR BACK SALARY DURING PERIOD OF DISMISSAL; NATURE THEREOF.
— Appellant's argument that the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian had no original
jurisdiction to try the case of appellee, since his action is in effect an action to enforce the
decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service and the indorsement of the Auditor General,
as well as to determine the legality of his dismissal from the service, has no merit. The
decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service referred only to the illegality of appellee's
dismissal. He did express his opinion to the effect that appellee was entitled to collect his
salary during the period of his ouster, but it was not in the nature of a decision, and the
Auditor General, who was the official empowered to rule on his claim for payment from
government funds, precisely decided adversely to him. His case, in fine, involves an ordinary
money claim, and was within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court where
it was filed, considering the amount involved. cdasia

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD. — Appellant points out that it took appellee
more than three years from the date of his reinstatement before he filed the complaint. The
period was still within the statutory limit. The action being upon an injury to the rights of the
appellee for having been illegally dismissed from the service, the limitation is four years
from the day the cause of action arose, as provided in Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIMANT NOT GUILTY OF LACHES. — Appellant invokes laches
on the part of appellee. This plea cannot prosper either. Appellee first filed his claim with the
government and did so without delay. The claim went through the usual government
channels. Upon being advised of the denial of his claim through a copy of the last
indorsement furnished him, he made several demands on appellant, and when the latter
failed to pay him, he filed the complaint on September 4, 1959. Under the circumstances, no
undue delay in the assertion of his rights can be attributed to appellee.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONAL LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. —

Appellant contends that the complaint was defective because it did not include the
municipality of Pagadian as party-defendant. Appellant, however, is sued on his personal
liability as the one responsible for appellee's illegal dismissal. No relief is sought against the
municipality of Pagadian, and therefore it is not a proper party herein.

5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. —

Appellant was correctly adjudged liable in this case. His act of dismissing appellee without
previous administrative investigation and without justifiable cause, as held by the
Commissioner of Civil Service, is clearly an injury to appellee's rights. Appellant cannot
hide under the mantle of his official capacity and pass the liability to the municipality of
which he was mayor. Victory at the polls should not be taken by local elective officials as
authority to indiscriminately replace employees with their own proteges, regardless of the
laws and regulations governing the civil service. cda

DECISION

MAKALINTAL, J : p

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur.

On March 9, 1955, the plaintiff, a civil service eligible, was appointed corporal in the police
force of the municipality of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, vice Floro D. Sandalo, by the
then Municipal Mayor, Francisco Consolacion. The appointment was approved by the
Assistant Executive Secretary (by authority of the President) with the notation, "subject to
the usual physical and medical examination."
In the elections of November 1955 the defendant, Bernabe Sabillano, won over Mayor
Francisco Consolacion. Immediately upon his assumption of office on January 1, 1956 he
terminated the services of the plaintiff, among other members of the police force, effective
upon the close of office hours on the same date, giving the following reasons for his action,
to wit:

"(1)That someone who has my confidence and who is more qualified than you are is
applying for your position.cdasia

"(2)That your appointment by Ex-Mayor Francisco Consolacion was illegal as you

replaced the former occupant who is arbitrarily removed from office without cause,
hence a violation of the Civil Service Law and Regulations.

"(3)That the former occupant whom you replaced has all the necessary qualification
for the position, he being a graduate of Associate in Arts, a Third Grade Civil
Service Eligible, and

"(4)That under Republic Act No. 1363, the former occupant has the preferential
rights to appointment in government position because he is a veteran of the last
World War."

The plaintiff immediately brought the matter to the attention of the Presidential Complaints
and Action Committee (PCAC) in the Office of the President. Subsequent action relayed it to
the Bureau (now Commission) of Civil Service, which rendered its decision on May 30,
1956, as follows:

"Touching on the matter regarding Mr. Nemenzo's removal from the service, and
his replacement by Mr. Sandalo, this Office believes that the removal of Mr.
Nemenzo, who is an eligible, was without cause, and as such, illegal, pursuant to
the provision of paragraph II (a) of Provincial Circular (Unnumbered) dated April
3, 1954, which reads in part as follows:

'a.Classified positions, occupied by eligibles. — The classified position in

the local government are supposed to be filled with civil service eligibles
(Sec. 672, Revised Administrative Code). Incumbents of these positions
who are civil service eligibles, can not be removed except for cause as
provided by law. . . .'"

Pursuant to the above decision the defendant reinstated the plaintiff to his former position on
July 19, 1956. In the meantime the plaintiff and the other policemen who had been removed
with him had filed a petition for quo warranto in this Court, but the petition was dismissed
on August 2, 1956, "without prejudice to action, if any, in the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga del Sur, there being a judge already appointed therefor." prLL

After his reinstatement the plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of his salary out of
government funds for the period from January 1 to July 18, 1956, inclusive. The
Commissioner of Civil Service, commenting on the plaintiff's claim in his 3rd Indorsement
dated November 25, 1956, expressed the view "that Corporal Joaquin Nemenzo is entitled to
payment of his salary corresponding to the whole period of his illegal separation." The
Auditor General concurred with the Commissioner of Civil Service, but was of the opinion
"that the salary corresponding to the period during which Mr. Joaquin Nemenzo was
deprived of his position of corporal of the police force of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, is a
personal liability of Mayor Bernabe G. Sabillano who caused said illegal ouster. . . ." On the
basis of the said opinion the Executive Secretary refused to authorize payment from
government funds, and at the same time invited attention to an unnumbered Provincial
Circular issued by his office on February 9, 1955, regarding payment of salaries during the
period of illegal separation of civil service employees. The said circular states:

"Office of the President of the Philippines

Provincial Circular

(Unnumbered)

February 9, 1955
SUBJECT:Payment of salaries during

the period of illegal separation

of civil service employees

— Officials responsible for

It has been observed that civil service employees who, under the Civil Service Law,
may only be removed or suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Commissioner
of Civil Service for cause as provided by law as a result of administrative
proceedings instituted against them, are oftentimes dismissed arbitrarily and
without cause only to be later on reinstated. In order, therefore, to protect the
interest of the government and to avoid unnecessary payment by the government of
salaries during the period of illegal separation of civil service employees, where no
services have been rendered at all to the detriment of the government, provincial
governors, city and municipal mayors, who separate or remove from the service
employees without cause and without instituting against them administrative
proceedings as required by Civil Service Laws and Regulations are hereby made
personally responsible and liable for the payment of the salaries of said employees
in the event they are reinstated and the payment of their salaries corresponding to
the periods they have been out of the service is ordered.

Provincial Governors are hereby directed to transmit the contents of this circular to
all municipal and municipal district mayors in their respective jurisdictions.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) FRED RUIZ CASTRO

 Executive Secretary"

Thereafter the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant for the payment of his back
salaries — the first on June 3, 1959 and the last on August 24, 1959 — but to no avail. On
September 4, 1959 he filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian,
Zamboanga del Sur, for the recovery of the amount of his claim. Judgment was rendered in
his favor, and the defendant went to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur on
appeal. Judgment there was again for the plaintiff, as follows:

"WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against

the defendant:

"1.Ordering the defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P725.00 corresponding to

plaintiff's back salaries from January 1, 1956 to July 18, 1956, with 6% interest
thereof per annum from the filing of the complaint on September 4, 1959, until
fully paid;

"2.Ordering the defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P200.00 as attorney's fees;
and

"3.To pay costs of suit."

The case came to us directly on appeal by the defendant.

Appellant alleges that the trial Court erred:

"(1)In not dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction; (2) In not dismissing this
case on the ground of laches; (3) In not dismissing the complaint in this case for
being fatally defective; (4) In condemning defendant to pay the claim of plaintiff, as
well as attorney's fees; and (5) In not dismissing this case with costs against
plaintiff."
cdll

In connection with the first assignment of error appellants' position is that while ostensibly
this action is for the collection of money it is in effect an action to enforce the decision of the
Commissioner of Civil Service and the indorsement of the Auditor General, as well to
determine the legality of the action of appellant in dismissing appellee from the service. In
view thereof, appellant points out, the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian had no original
jurisdiction to try the case, and consequently the Court of First Instance acquired no
jurisdiction on appeal.

The argument has no merit. The decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service referred only
to the illegality of appellee's dismissal. He did express his opinion, in another indorsement to
the Auditor General on November 25, 1957, to the effect that appellee was entitled to collect
his salary during the period of his ouster, but it was not in the nature of a decision, and the
Auditor General, who was the official empowered to rule on his claim for payment from
government funds, precisely decided adversely to him. This action, therefore, could not be
for the enforcement of that ruling.

Neither does this case involve the determination of the legality or illegality of appellee's
dismissal by appellant. That question is a closed one, having been passed upon and decided
by the Commissioner of Civil Service. Appellant did not contest that decision, and in fact
implemented it by reinstating appellee on July 19, 1956.

This case, in fine, involves an ordinary money claim, and was within the original jurisdiction
of the Justice of the Peace Court where it was filed, considering the amount involved.

Appellant next points out that it took appellee more than three years from the date of his
reinstatement before he filed the complaint. The period was still within the statutory limit.
The action being upon an injury to the rights of appellee for having been illegally dismissed
from the service, the limitation is four years from the day the cause of action arose, as
provided in Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

Appellant also invokes laches on the part of appellee. This plea cannot prosper either.
Appellee first filed his claim with the government and did so without delay. The claim went
through the usual government channels, as shown by the 3rd Indorsement of the
Commissioner of Civil Service, dated November 25, 1956; the 6th Indorsement of the
Auditor General dated April 7, 1958; the 7th Indorsement of the Executive Secretary,
disapproving the claim, dated March 31, 1959; and the 8th Indorsement of the Provincial
Governor, dated May 8, 1959. Appellee was advised of the action taken on his claim when
he was furnished a copy of this last indorsement. Thereupon he made several demands on
appellant, and when the latter failed to pay him he filed the complaint on September 4, 1959.
Under the circumstances, no undue delay in the assertion of his rights can be attributed to
appellee. cda

The third error assigned is that the complaint was defective because it did not include the
municipality of Pagadian as party-defendant. Appellant, however, is sued on his personal
liability as the one responsible for appellee's illegal dismissal. No relief is sought against the
municipality of Pagadian, and therefore it is not a proper party herein.

Under the fourth assignment of error, appellant tries to justify the dismissal of appellee on
several grounds. But as we have stated earlier, that question is already settled by the decision
of the Commissioner of Civil Service, culminating in the reinstatement of appellee in the
service.

Referring to the petition for quo warranto which was instituted in this court by appellee, and
later dismissed "without prejudice to action if any, in the Court of First Instance," appellant
says that appellee's failure to file such action constitutes a bar to the present one. Such action
would be to contest the title to the office, and if it was not refiled in the Court of First
Instance it was because there was no longer any need for it, since appellee had already been
reinstated at the time his petition was dismissed by us.

Appellant was correctly adjudged liable in this case. His act of dismissing appellee without
previous administrative investigation and without justifiable cause, as held by the
Commissioner of Civil Service, is clearly an injury to appellee's rights. Appellant cannot
 hide under the mantle of his official capacity and pass the liability to the municipality of
which he was mayor. There are altogether too many cases of this nature, wherein local
elective officials, upon assumption of office, wield their new-found power indiscriminately
by replacing employees with their own proteges, regardless of the laws and regulations
governing the civil service. Victory at the polls should not be taken as authority for the
commission of such illegal acts. cdasia

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C .J ., Reyes, J .B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando,
JJ ., concur.

© 2009 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click here for our Disclaimer and Copyright Notice
back

Use arrows to navigate

between search terms

top of page

CD Asia Technologies, Inc.