G.R. No. L-25972 November 26, 1968
LEONARDO C. GUTIERREZ, Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR Of BATANGAS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD of BATANGAS, and the PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT of BATANGAS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SILVESTRE D. FLORINDO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Silvestre D. Florindo was a regular and permanent market administrator and deputy in the office of the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas. On February 25, 1960, the Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 545 creating the position of “budget officer and fiscal analyst” in the office of the provincial governor, with a compensation of P7,200 per annum. Florindo was appointed to this position, effective March 1, 1960. On June 28, 1960, the Board approved Resolution No. 1785, changing the title to “budget and fiscal officer” and prescribing its duties. On December 6, 1960, the Provincial Governor issued Florindo an appointment as budget and fiscal officer with a compensation of P6,000 per annum, effective March 1, 1960, which was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service subject to availability of funds. Despite the higher compensation, Florindo received only his old salary of P275 a month from March 1, 1960, to April 30, 1962. On August 21, 1961, Florindo filed a claim for his salary differential with the Provincial Treasurer, who denied it on grounds of no available funds and no valid appropriation. Florindo appealed to the Office of the President, but no action was taken. On April 16, 1962, Florindo filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against the Provincial Treasurer to compel certification and availability of funds for his salary differential and to recover damages. On April 25, 1962, the Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 872, abolishing the position of budget and fiscal officer and reassigning Florindo to his former position, prompting Florindo to amend his petition to include the Provincial Governor, Provincial Board, and Provincial Government as respondents. The trial court dismissed the mandamus petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but nullified Resolution No. 872. Florindo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the nullification of Resolution No. 872, reversed the dismissal of the mandamus petition, ordered the Provincial Treasurer to pay Florindo’s salary differential at P6,000 per year from March 1, 1960, and initially sentenced the Provincial Treasurer in his private capacity to pay moral damages and attorney’s fees. Upon a second motion for reconsideration filed by the Treasurer in his private capacity, the Court of Appeals eliminated the awards for damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed on time.
2. Whether Florindo had a cause of action for mandamus to compel payment of his salary differential.

RULING

1. The petition for review was filed out of time and is dismissible on this ground. The reglementary period to appeal began to run from March 24, 1966, when petitioners received notice of the Court of Appeals’ resolution denying their first motion for reconsideration. They had fifteen days from that date, or until April 8, 1966, to file their petition. The petition was filed on April 29, 1966, which was 21 days late. The second motion for reconsideration, filed by the Provincial Treasurer in his private capacity alone and limited to challenging his personal liability for damages, did not suspend the running of the period for the other petitioners or for the Treasurer in his official capacity concerning the other aspects of the decision (annulment of Resolution No. 872 and payment of salary differential). Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals on those matters became final and executory on April 9, 1966. The provisions on the period for appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional.
2. On the merits, the appeal is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court found that the issues raised were purely legal, and the action for mandamus was proper. The Court of Appeals correctly held that Florindo was entitled to his salary differential. The approval of his appointment by the Commissioner of Civil Service, subject to availability of funds, did not negate the obligation to pay once funds were or could have been made available. The Court of Appeals found that funds were available or could have been made available, but the Provincial Treasurer unjustifiably refused to certify their availability. The abolition of the position via Resolution No. 872, done after the filing of the suit, was correctly nullified by the Court of Appeals as being in bad faith and an attempt to circumvent Florindo’s claim.