G.R. No. L-13012 and L-14786, December 31, 1960
Case Title: THE CITY OF CEBU, petitioner, vs. JUDGE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and ANACLETO CABALLERO, respondents. (Consolidated with) THE CITY OF CEBU, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANACLETO CABALLERO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

1. On April 11, 1955, Anacleto Caballero filed a petition for Mandamus in the CFI of Cebu (Civil Case No. R-3941) against the City Mayor, the Municipal Board, the City Treasurer, and the City Auditor of Cebu City, seeking reinstatement to his former position as Caretaker for the Operation of Cemeteries and payment of back salaries from April 15, 1953.
2. On August 6, 1955, Judge Edmundo Piccio rendered a judgment ordering Caballero’s reinstatement and payment of his back salaries. No appeal was taken, and the judgment became final.
3. A writ of execution was issued. The Municipal Board of Cebu City passed a resolution appropriating P3,224.00 for Caballero’s back salaries, which was approved by the City Mayor and paid to Caballero.
4. Caballero was not reinstated. Judge Piccio issued an order on August 27, 1958, directing the Municipal Board to recreate Caballero’s position. The board did not comply.
5. On October 11, 1957, the lower court amended its order, directing the Municipal Board to recreate the position within five days.
6. The City of Cebu filed a petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. L-13012) to restrain enforcement of the judgment.
7. Separately, on October 2, 1957, the City of Cebu filed an action (Civil Case No. R-5243) against Caballero to recover the P3,224.00 paid, plus damages, claiming the payment was wrongful and illegal because the City was not a party to the mandamus case.
8. Caballero moved to dismiss the recovery case. The CFI dismissed the complaint. The City of Cebu appealed this dismissal (G.R. No. L-14786).

ISSUE

1. Does the non-inclusion of the City of Cebu as a party in the mandamus case make the payment of Caballero’s back salaries wrongful or illegal and not binding on the City?
2. Was the dismissal of the City’s recovery case correct?

RULING

1. The non-inclusion of the City of Cebu in the mandamus case does not make the payment wrongful or illegal, and the City is bound by the judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that the City’s liability for back salaries of an illegally dismissed employee exists regardless of its formal inclusion as a party. Citing Mangubat vs. Osmeña, the Court held that the requirements of due process were substantially complied with because the City’s officers (Mayor, Municipal Board, Treasurer, Auditor) who were sued in their official capacity represented the same interest as the City. The City Attorney, who represented these officers, is the officer charged by law to represent the City in civil cases. The judgment against these officers in their official capacity is binding upon the municipal corporation. Furthermore, the City, through its agents (the officers-respondents), had already waived any defense under its Charter by appropriating and paying the back salaries.
2. The dismissal of the recovery case was correct. The City’s action was predicated on Article 2154 of the Civil Code (solutio indebiti), which requires that (a) the payer was not under obligation to pay, and (b) the payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact. These requisites were not present. Caballero had a perfect right to demand payment of his back salaries for the period of his illegal dismissal. The payment was made pursuant to a lawful writ of execution and was not made through mistake. Therefore, the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-13012) was dismissed for lack of merit. The order dismissing the recovery case (G.R. No. L-14786) was affirmed. Costs were taxed against the City of Cebu in both cases.