G.R. No. L-23670 September 30, 1969
ANGEL ENCISO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEOGRACIAS REMO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Angel Enciso, a civil service eligible and sergeant in the police force of Goa, Camarines Sur, applied for and was granted a leave of absence by Mayor Deogracias Remo on February 15, 1952. On the day his leave began, a non-eligible, Sergio Calingan, was appointed “vice Angel Enciso.” Upon Enciso’s return, he was informed his position had been “abolished” by the municipal council, purportedly pursuant to a directive from the Secretary of Finance, and a position of corporal had been “created” in its stead. After unsuccessful administrative complaints, Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema ordered Enciso’s reinstatement on March 15, 1954, but Mayor Remo refused. Enciso filed a petition for mandamus for reinstatement and damages. During the pendency of the case, the acting municipal mayor reinstated Enciso to the position of corporal on August 2, 1954. Enciso amended his petition to claim back salaries and additional damages, and later impleaded the Municipality of Goa. The lower court initially rendered judgment only against Remo for back salaries and attorney’s fees. Upon Enciso’s motion, the court amended its judgment to hold Remo and the Municipality of Goa jointly and solidarily liable for back salaries, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The respondents’ appeal was initially disapproved by the lower court for failure to file a record on appeal, but the Supreme Court ordered the appeal to be given due course, holding the action retained its character as mandamus.

ISSUE

1. Whether the position of sergeant occupied by Enciso was lawfully abolished.
2. Whether the lower court retained jurisdiction to amend its decision to hold the Municipality of Goa solidarily liable after the original decision had allegedly become final.
3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay Enciso back salaries and damages for the period of his illegal exclusion.

RULING

1. NO. The claim of abolition is without basis. The municipal budget for 1952-1953 merely changed the rank from sergeant to corporal while maintaining the salary, indicating no abolition. Republic Act 554, which amended the Revised Administrative Code, only adjusted maximum salary rates and did not abolish positions. The Department of Finance clarified its directive required only a change in designation to conform to law, not abolition, especially since Enciso was a civil service eligible. The reinstatement order itself stated Enciso was reinstated to the position of corporal “instead of sergeant,” admitting the position was the same with a different name.
2. YES. The lower court retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in Remo v. Palacio that the action remained a special civil action for mandamus. Under the Rules of Court, in special proceedings and special civil actions, the period for appeal is counted from notice of the order or judgment, and the amendment of the judgment was made before the respondents’ appeal was perfected. The amendment was therefore within the court’s jurisdiction.
3. YES, for back salaries, but NO for separate moral damages. Mayor Remo acted maliciously and in bad faith in refusing to reinstate Enciso despite a direct order from the Office of the President, making him personally liable. The Municipality of Goa is also solidarily liable for the back salaries of an employee illegally separated from service, as established in jurisprudence. The unlawful exclusion was equivalent to illegal separation. However, the award of moral damages is eliminated, as the award of back salaries already includes and absorbs this item, following the ruling in Diaz v. Amante.
The judgment a quo is AFFIRMED with the elimination of the award of moral damages.