GR L 20818; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966
CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL., petitioners and appellees, vs. RODOLFO GANZON, as Mayor of the City of Iloilo, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ILOILO CITY, CITY TREASURER and the CITY OF ILOILO, respondents and appellants.
FACTS
Petitioners are laborers/employees in the unclassified service, working as market sweepers for the City of Iloilo for periods ranging from nine to twenty-five years. On July 12, 1955, they and others filed a case (Civil Case No. 3764) to compel city officials to reinstate them after an alleged illegal dismissal. On March 15, 1956, a final and executory judgment was rendered declaring them permanent employees and ordering their reinstatement. However, their budget items were not included in the city’s fiscal year 1960-1961 budget. Petitioners asked the Secretary of Finance to declare the abolition of their positions inoperative, but the request was denied. They then filed the present mandamus action to compel respondents to restore their budget items, reinstate them, and pay their back salaries. Respondents alleged the abolition was for economy, to balance the budget, meet education program costs, and due to petitioners’ inefficiency, and that the city planned to contract out the market cleaning. The lower court found these allegations were a device to conceal that the real cause was “political exigency” and that the abolition was politically inspired to replace petitioners with followers of the respondents, and that new laborers were in fact placed in their positions.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in holding the City of Iloilo jointly liable with the other respondents for the back salaries of the petitioners.
RULING
No, the lower court did not err. The City of Iloilo can be held jointly liable. First, its Charter (Commonwealth Act No. 158) expressly provides that the city may “sue and be sued.” Second, the operation of a market, in which the petitioners were engaged for cleaning, is not strictly a governmental function. Third, jurisprudence has established that municipal corporations may be held liable for the back pay of employees illegally separated from service, even for positions involving primarily governmental functions like policemen. The decision appealed from is affirmed.