GR L 21905; (March, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21905 March 31, 1966
EUFRONIO J. LLANTO, petitioner-appellant, vs. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO, Provincial Governor of Lanao del Norte; PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LANAO DEL NORTE; VALERIO V. ROVIRA, Vice-Governor; BIENVENIDO L. PADILLA, Member; FELIXBERTO ABELLANOSA, Member; PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE; PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF LANAO DEL NORTE; PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF LANAO DEL NORTE, and PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF LANAO DEL NORTE, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Resolution No. 7, Series of 1960, adopted by the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte on January 6, 1960, reverted the 1960-1961 salary appropriation for the position of Assistant Provincial Assessor to the general fund, effectively abolishing the position then held by petitioner Eufronio J. Llanto. Petitioner appealed unsuccessfully to various executive officials and then filed a mandamus petition in court seeking annulment of the resolution, restoration of the salary appropriation, his reinstatement, and payment of back salaries and damages. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the dismissal order was issued without a hearing on the motion to dismiss and was void, and that the abolition of his position was illegal.
ISSUE
1. Whether the dismissal order was void for having been issued without a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
2. Whether the mandamus petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action, specifically regarding the provincial board’s power to abolish the position.
3. Whether the provincial board resolution abolishing the position required the approval of the Secretary of Finance to be effective.
4. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the restoration of the abolished position.
RULING
1. No, the dismissal order was not void. The motion to dismiss was grounded on lack of cause of action, a purely legal issue determined by the facts averred in the petition. The arguments were fully discussed in the motion and petitioner’s written opposition. Oral arguments were unnecessary. Furthermore, any alleged defect from lack of notice or hearing was cured when petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was overruled, giving him his day in court. The regularity of the court proceedings is presumed.
2. Yes, the petition was correctly dismissed for lack of cause of action. The power to create an office normally implies the power to abolish it. Petitioner’s allegation that the abolition was done “maliciously and illegally for the purpose of political persecution and political vengeance” is a mere conclusion of law, not an allegation of ultimate facts, and is unsupported by factual premises. Against this bare allegation stands the presumption of good faith and the presumption that official duty was regularly performed. The resolution cited a huge deficit and that the position, not required by the Administrative Code, could be dispensed with. The case differs from Briones v. Osmeña, where the abolition was a subterfuge for removal, as here there were no allegations of a wholesale creation of positions in almost the same breath.
3. No, the approval of the Secretary of Finance was not required. Republic Act No. 2264 , the Local Autonomy Act, removed the necessity for such approval found in prior law ( Republic Act No. 1062 ). Section 3(a) of the Local Autonomy Act gives the provincial board the power to appropriate money, with the implied power to withdraw unexpended money. The Act only gives the Secretary of Finance authority to review budgets and tax ordinances, not to approve the abolition of positions. The law must be interpreted liberally in favor of local government autonomy.
4. No, mandamus is not the proper remedy. Mandamus compels the performance of a clear, specific, ministerial duty. It cannot be used to control or review the normal exercise of judgment or discretion by a governmental body, such as the provincial board’s decision to abolish a position for reasons of economy.
The order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against appellant.