G.R. No. L-13718; April 28, 1960
DEOGRACIAS REMO and Municipality of GOA, CAMARINES SUR, petitioners, vs. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, judge, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, and ANGEL ENCISO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Angel Enciso filed Special Civil Case No. 2650 (a petition for mandamus) against petitioner Deogracias Remo, then Mayor of Goa, Camarines Sur, seeking reinstatement to his position as police sergeant and recovery of moral and actual damages, plus attorney’s fees. During the pendency of the case, Enciso filed amended and supplemental petitions, alleging that any reinstatement by Remo was simulated as he was given no badge, service pistol, or duties. After Remo’s term as mayor expired on December 31, 1955, Enciso filed a reamended petition to include the Municipality of Goa as a respondent. On November 26, 1957, respondent Judge Perfecto R. Palacio rendered a decision ordering Remo (in his capacity as Mayor) to pay Enciso back salaries, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. Upon Enciso’s motion, the judge amended the decision on January 16, 1958, to hold ex-Mayor Remo and the Municipality of Goa jointly and solidarily liable. Prior to this amendment, on December 18, 1957, petitioners Remo and the Municipality had filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. Respondent Judge refused to give due course to the appeal, holding that the case had ceased to be a mandamus action (as Enciso had been reinstated) and became an ordinary action for damages, thus requiring a record on appeal for perfection of appeal, which petitioners failed to file. Petitioners then filed this action, essentially seeking mandamus to compel the judge to approve their appeal bond and give due course to their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the case had become an ordinary action for damages requiring a record on appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners. The nature of a proceeding is determined by the allegations in the pleadings and the relief sought, not by the validity of the claim. Throughout the proceedings, Enciso’s petitions consistently alleged that his reinstatement was simulated and prayed for an order of reinstatement and damages. Respondent Judge’s own decision found that Remo willfully refused to reinstate Enciso despite orders. Therefore, the case retained its character as a special civil action for mandamus. As a special proceeding, the appeal was perfected by the mere filing of a notice of appeal and an appeal bond; a record on appeal was not required. Respondent Judge’s refusal to approve the bond and give due course to the appeal was erroneous. The Court directed respondent Judge to approve the appeal bond and give due course to the appeal, and made the preliminary injunction against the execution of the judgment permanent. Costs were imposed on respondent Enciso.