G.R. No. L-46096 July 30, 1979
EUFEMIO T. CORREA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN (BRANCH 11), CITY SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, MUNICIPALITY OF NORZAGARAY, BULACAN, HON. ARMANDO ENRIQUEZ, as the Incumbent Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, CANDIDO P. CRUZ, ISABELO SAPLALA, TOMAS PALAD, ANTONIO SILVERIO, MELANIO ESTEBAN, ELIGIO PUNZAL, CELEDONIO PRINCIPE, ANTONIO ANCHETA, and JUANITO SARMIENTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eufemio T. Correa, then Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, was adjudged personally liable, jointly and severally with the municipal treasurer, for the back salaries of several policemen whom he had illegally dismissed. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in a 1968 decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1976, ordered Correa to reinstate the plaintiffs and to pay their salaries from the dates of their illegal removal until actual reinstatement. The judgment became final and executory.
A writ of execution was subsequently issued. Correa, who was no longer in office at the time of the writ’s service, filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that his personal liability ceased upon his separation from office and that the financial obligation should now be borne by the Municipality of Norzagaray. He invoked precedents suggesting liability attaches to the municipal corporation for back salaries of illegally dismissed employees. The respondent court denied his motion, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution, which sought to enforce the personal monetary liability of the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the final and executory nature of the judgment and the doctrine of personal liability for ultra vires acts. The trial court’s decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, explicitly and categorically held petitioner Correa “personally to pay” the back salaries. A writ of execution must conform strictly to such a judgment; it cannot be varied or altered. The Court emphasized that a public officer who commits a wrongful act, such as an illegal dismissal done without compliance with legal requirements, acts beyond the scope of official duty and is therefore not shielded by office. Consequently, the officer is personally liable, and this liability does not shift to the municipal corporation merely due to the officer’s subsequent separation from service. The municipality is generally responsible for acts of its officers only when they act by and in conformity with legal authority. Since Correa’s act was illegal, his liability remained personal and enforceable against him individually, irrespective of his current tenure. The denial of the motion to quash was thus a correct ministerial enforcement of a final judgment.