G.R. No. L-9634; October 30, 1957
APARECIO ALBUERA, ETC., ET AL., petitioner-appellees, vs. BERNARDO TORRES as Provincial Governor of Leyte, and FRANCISCO ASTILLA, and MANUEL NIERRAS as Members of the Provincial Board of Leyte, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs were foremen, carpenters, “camineros,” truck drivers, and a watchman employed in maintaining provincial roads and bridges in Leyte. They filed an action against the Provincial Governor and two members of the Provincial Board of Leyte to restrain them from terminating the plaintiffs’ services and to secure indemnity for moral damages. The Court of First Instance of Leyte issued a preliminary injunction and later rendered a decision making the injunction permanent and ordering the defendants not to remove the plaintiffs from their positions. The defendants appealed, raising several errors related to pleadings and procedure. Key procedural events include: the Provincial Fiscal and a private practitioner filed an urgent motion to dismiss; the court declared defendants Astilla and Nierras in default; an answer was filed on behalf of Governor Torres and defendant Nierras; the court held that a private practitioner had no authority to appear for the provincial governor in his official capacity; a new Provincial Fiscal filed an amended answer on behalf of Governor Torres, which contained a general and specific denial of the complaint’s allegations; and the lower court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on this amended answer, holding that the plaintiffs, as civil service employees, could not be removed without cause.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings based on the amended answer filed by the Provincial Fiscal.
2. Whether a hearing on the merits is required to determine the precise civil service status of the petitioners and the applicability of Republic Act No. 528 .

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held:
1. The amended answer filed by the Provincial Fiscal on March 25, 1954, which amended paragraphs 1 to 12 of the original answer by “denying generally and specifically each and every allegation in the complaint,” should be liberally construed. It did not replace the original answer but added a general and specific denial to it. Therefore, the allegations of the complaint were effectively traversed by defendant Governor Torres, making a judgment on the pleadings improper. A hearing on the issues of fact was necessary.
2. The need for a hearing was underscored by the necessity to determine the plaintiffs’ exact status under the Civil Service Law. Citing recent decisions (Villanueva vs. Algera and Elejida vs. Gatucara), the Court noted that under Republic Act No. 528 , appointments to temporary civil service positions in the provincial service, made in the absence of eligibles, must be submitted to the Provincial Board for approval and may be disapproved by it. This factual and legal issue required evidence and could not be resolved on the pleadings alone.
The Court did not definitively rule on the other assigned errors, as the remand for further proceedings rendered them moot for the time being. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.