GR L 9447; (August, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9447; August 23, 1956
NICASIO FAUNILLAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. VINCENT DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Nicasio Faunillan was a detective in the Police Department of Cebu City, appointed on July 1, 1949. On May 19, 1953, his service was terminated by then Mayor Vicente del Rosario. Faunillan filed a petition for mandamus for reinstatement and damages. Subsequently, Del Rosario was ousted from office by Supreme Court decision, and the former mayor, Jose V. Rodriguez, reinstated Faunillan on December 17, 1953. Faunillan then amended his petition to include a claim for back salaries from the date of his dismissal to his reinstatement. The parties entered into a stipulation of facts, agreeing to abandon all claims for damages and attorney’s fees except for the claim for back salaries. The lower court found the dismissal arbitrary and in violation of Republic Act No. 557 and ordered the City Treasurer to pay Faunillan’s accrued salaries. The respondents appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the City of Cebu can be held liable for the back salaries (constituting compensatory damages) of a wrongfully dismissed employee, given the exemption from liability clause in its charter.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment ordering the City Treasurer to pay the accrued salaries. While the Court agreed that Faunillan’s summary dismissal by former Mayor Vicente del Rosario was arbitrary and violated Republic Act No. 557 , it held that the City of Cebu is exempt from liability for such damages under Section 5 of its Charter ( Commonwealth Act No. 58 , as amended). This provision states that the city shall not be liable for damages arising from the failure of any city official to comply with the law. The claim for back salaries during the period of unlawful dismissal constitutes compensatory or actual damages. Therefore, the city cannot be held liable. Faunillan’s proper remedy is to file a personal action against the guilty official, Vicente del Rosario. The judgment was reversed without prejudice to such an action.