DEOGRACIAS REMO AND MUNICIPALITY OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, AND ANGEL ENCISO, RESPONDENTS.

The petition herein, filed by Deogracias Remo and the Municipality
of Goa, Camarines Sur, purports to be one for a writ of certiorari
against respondent, Hon. Perfecto R. Palacio, as Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Sur. Actually, however, petitioners seek a
writ of mandamus to compel said respondent Judge to give due course to
an appeal taken by the former from a decision of the latter in favor of
the other respondent herein, Angel Enciso, as petitioner in Special
Civil. Case No. 2650 of the aforementioned court.

That case was instituted on May 11, 1954 for the purpose of
enjoining Remo, as the then Mayor of Goa, Camarines Sur, to reinstate
Enciso, as a sergeant of the police force of said municipality, and of
recovering P3,000 as moral damages, and P1,200 as actual damages, as
well as attorney’s fees and the costs. On October 6, 1954, Enciso filed
an amended petition with a prayer that Remo be likewise, sentenced to
pay the amount of Enciso’s salary of P55 a month, as sergeant of the
police force of Goa, from his separation from the service to his
reinstatement. By a supplemental petition of the same date, Enciso
sought an additional indemnity of P5,000 as moral damages, upon the
ground that, although Remo had pretended to reinstate him, he was given
neither a badge or a service pistol, nor the duties and
responsibilities of his position as police sergeant or corporal, the
functions of which were still being performed by the person who took
over said position upon his (Enciso’s) illegal removal from office, and
that, as a consequence, he had been subjected to ridicule and
embarrassment, and had, accordingly, suffered said moral damages. A
reamended petition was filed on February 20, 1956—when Remo was no
longer Mayor, his term having expired on December 31, 1955, and another
person having assumed office since then—to include the municipality of
Goa as one of the respondents in said special civil case. In due
course, respondent Judge rendered a decision, on November 26, 1957, the
dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“In view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered: (a)
ordering the respondent Deogracias Remo, in his capacity as Mayor of
Goa, to pay tbe petitioner all his salary from the time he was refused
reinstatement to the police force of Goa, Camarines Sur in August 1952,
until the time when he was reinstated to his present position as
Corporal in the Police Force of Goa; (b) ordering the
respondent, Mayor Remo of Goa, to pay the petitioner the amount of
P500.00 as moral damages and another amount of P500.00 as attorney’s
fees; and (c) ordering the respondent Mayor Remo, to pay the costs of the suit.”

Copy of this decision was received by Enciso on December 3, 1957,
and by Remo and the Municipality of Goa the next day. On motion of
Enciso, dated December 24, 1957, respondent Judge, by an order dated
January 16, 1958, amended said decision so as to render judgment:

“* * * (a) ordering the respondent
Ex-Mayor Deogracias Remo and the Municipality of Goa to pay jointly and
solidarily the salaries of the plaintiff-petitioner, Angel Enciso, from
the time when he was refused reinstatement in the Police Force of Goa
in August, 1952 until the time when he was reinstated in his present
position as Corporal of the Police Force of Goa; (b) ordering
the respondents, Ex-Mayor Deogracias Remo of Goa and the Municipality
of Goa, to jointly and severally pay the petitioner, Angel Enciso the
amount of P500.00 as moral damages and another amount of P500.00 as
attorney’s fees; and (c) ordering the respondents to pay the costs of the suit.”

Prior thereto, or on December 18, 1957, Remo and the Municipality of
Goa had filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond, with the prayer
that the latter be approved. On January 22, 1958, they filed another
motion urging respondent Judge to act on said notice of appeal and
appeal bond. This motion was denied by an order dated February 24,
1958, which respondent Judge, later, refused to reconsider. Hence the
present action for a writ requiring respondent Judge to give due course
to said appeal of petitioners herein.

It appearing that, after the filing of the petition herein,
respondent Judge had issued a writ for the execution of his decision in
Case No. 2650 and that, in compliance therewith, the Provincial Sheriff
of Camarines Sur had levied upon certain properties of Remo and the
municipality of Goa and was about to sell such properties at public
auction, on motion of petitioners herein, and upon the filing and
approval of the corresponding bond, we issued a writ of preliminary
injunction suspending the aforementioned auction sale, as well as
further proceedings in said case.

The refusal of respondent Judge to give due course to the appeal of
petitioners herein as respondents in said Special Civil Case No. 2650,
is predicated upon the theory that such case had ceased to be one of
mandamus and become an ordinary action for the recovery of damages,
“Angel Enciso having been reinstated by * * * Remo, while the case was
pending trial”, and that petitioners herein having failed to file the
record on appeal required in ordinary civil actions, their appeal in
said case had not been duly perfected. This conclusion is based upon an
erroneous premise.

It should be noted that on August 3, 1954, Remo moved for the
dismissal of the original petition in said Case No. 2650 upon the
ground that he had already reinstated Enciso, and that this motion was
denied by respondent Judge on August 4, 1954, for the reason that,
according to Enciso, “the so-called reinstatement is only simulated”.
Consequently, in his amended petition, of October 6, 1954, as well as
in his reamended petition of February 20, 1956, Enciso still prayed
that Remo be sentenced to reinstate him as corporal of the police force
of Goa and to pay the corresponding damages. What is more, in his
supplemental petition of October 6, 1954, Enciso prayed for a judgment
in the additional sum of P5,000 as moral damages, on account of the
embarrassment and humiliation he had suffered, and the ridicule to
which he had been exposed, by reason of his simulated reinstatement,
without the duties and responsibilities of his position as officer of
the police force, and without a service pistol or even a badge. The
artificiality of said alleged reinstatement is bolstered up by Remo’s
answer to the original petition, as well as to the amended petition and
then to the reamended petition in Case No. 2650, he having consistently
asserted, by way of special defense, in his aforementioned pleading
that Enciso had abandoned his office and that he could not legally be
reinstated in his former position as police sergeant, because the same,
he (Remo) claimed, had been abolished. These averments indicate clearly
that Remo was unwilling to reinstate Enciso, despite the allegation, in
his aforementioned motion to dismiss the original petition and in his
answer to the reamended petition, to the effect that he (Remo) had
already restored him (Enciso) to his former status in the police force.
To cap it all, respondent Judge found in his decision of November 26,
1957:

“It having been clearly shown by evidence, that
respondent, Deogracias Remo, in his capacity as Mayor of Goa, refused
to reinstate the petitioner to his former position in the police force
of Goa, despite the orders of Malacañang to do so (Exhs. G and I), and
inspito of the opinion of the Secretary of Finance (Exhibit H), the
respondent Mayor of Goa willfully acted in bad faith, and therefore,
he, as mayor of Goa, should pay for damages caused to the petitioner,
Angel Enciso.”

The fact that Remo had ceased to be the mayor of Goa on December 31,
1955, and that, accordingly, he could not be compelled, thereafter, to
reinstate Enciso, for want of authority to do so, even if he wanted to,
is immaterial to the issue before us. As long as Enciso insisted in
maintaining in his petition—and he did in all his pleading— that he had
not been actually reinstated, and in praying for an order of
reinstatement—regardless of the merits and demerits of this prayer—the
case retained its original character as a special civil action for
mandamus. Indeed, the nature of a proceeding is determined by the
allegations in the pleadings and the relief therein sought—not by the
validity of the claim therefor. Hence, it is not necessary for
petitioners herein, as respondents in Special Civil Case No. 2650, to
file a record on appeal in order to seek a review, by a higher court,
of the decision rendered by respondent Judge.

Wherefore, the latter is directed to approve the appeal bond
submitted by petitioners herein as respondents in said Case No. 2650,
and to give due course to the appeal therein taken by petitioners
herein as such respondents in the aforementioned case, and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued in the present case is hereby made
permanent, with costs against respondent Angel Enciso. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.