G.R. No. L-5856. December 29, 1953

In his motion for reconsideration appellant asks that the court
positively declare that he is entitled to the payment of back salaries
in order that he “may take the necessary administrative remedy” for
their collection.

It is a universal principle that judgments must be responsive
to the issues presented by the pleadings. (49 C. J. S., 117.) As there
can be no issues between plaintiff or defendant and a stranger to the
case, no judgment can be rendered for or against one who has not been
impleaded. (41 C. J. S., 117.) In fact, not only is there no issue
between plaintiff or defendant and a person not a party to an action,
but the court has absolutely no jurisdiction of his person.

The objection would not disappear if the declaration here
sought were to be used merely to persuade the proper authorities to pay
the appellant his claim. It is also and unvarying rule of courts to
refrain from making any adjudication the enforcement of which would be
left to the discretion or will of the debtor, or any pronouncement which
would affect the rights of parties who have not had their day in court.
Any declaration holding any officials of the Government liable for the
payment of appellant’s salary for the time he was kept out of the
position of toll collector would be unfair as prejudging any suit that
might be brought against them in case they refuse.

The prayer that, in the alternative, “The defendant Provincial
Treasurer be condemned to pay from his own private funds as exemplary
damages to the plaintiff” the appellant’s salary “during the period of
the latter’s legal suspension or dismissal” was amply discussed in our
decision. We find no reason for altering our conclusion that the
Provincial Treasurer cannot be held liable. There is no proof that he
acted in bad faith, as charged.

Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista
Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.