G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968
JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE SABILLANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 9, 1955, plaintiff-appellee Joaquin P. Nemenzo, a civil service eligible, was appointed corporal in the police force of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, by Mayor Francisco Consolacion. The appointment was approved by the Assistant Executive Secretary, subject to physical and medical examination. Following the November 1955 elections, defendant-appellant Bernabe Sabillano assumed office as Mayor on January 1, 1956, and immediately terminated Nemenzo’s services, citing reasons including a desire to appoint a more qualified confidant, the alleged illegality of the prior appointment, the qualifications of the former occupant, and the veteran’s preferential rights of the former occupant. Nemenzo brought the matter to the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee, which was relayed to the Bureau of Civil Service. On May 30, 1956, the Bureau ruled that Nemenzo’s removal, as an eligible, was without cause and illegal. Pursuant to this decision, Sabillano reinstated Nemenzo on July 19, 1956. Nemenzo then filed a claim for back salaries from January 1 to July 18, 1956. The Commissioner of Civil Service opined that Nemenzo was entitled to payment for the entire period of illegal separation. The Auditor General concurred but opined that the salary was a personal liability of Mayor Sabillano. The Executive Secretary, citing a Provincial Circular dated February 9, 1955, which made officials personally liable for salaries of illegally separated employees, refused payment from government funds. After several demands for payment failed, Nemenzo filed a complaint for recovery of the sum in the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian. The court ruled in his favor, and on appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur also rendered judgment for Nemenzo, ordering Sabillano to pay back salaries with interest and attorney’s fees. Sabillano appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The main issues, as framed by appellant’s assignments of error, are: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case; (2) whether the action was barred by laches; (3) whether the complaint was fatally defective for not including the municipality as a party; (4) whether the defendant was correctly held liable for the claim and attorney’s fees; and (5) whether the case should be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
1. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the case involved an ordinary money claim for back salaries, which was within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court given the amount involved. It was not an action to enforce a decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service or to determine the legality of the dismissal, as the latter issue was already settled by the Commissioner’s decision, which the appellant implemented by reinstating the appellee.
2. On laches, the Court found no undue delay. The action was filed within the four-year prescriptive period for injuries to rights under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. The appellee promptly filed his claim with the government, which went through various indorsements, and only filed the court action after demands on the appellant failed.
3. On the defect of the complaint, the Court held that the municipality was not a proper party as the appellant was sued on his personal liability under the Provincial Circular, and no relief was sought against the municipality.
4. On the liability for the claim, the Court upheld the finding that the appellant’s act of dismissing the appellee without cause and without administrative investigation was an injury to the appellee’s rights. The appellant could not avoid personal liability by claiming official capacity. The Court emphasized that victory at the polls does not authorize illegal acts like arbitrarily replacing civil service employees.
5. The Court affirmed the award of back salaries, interest, and attorney’s fees, with costs against the appellant.