WENCESLAO GREGORIO, FLORENTINO PERUELO, LORENZO CALAMBA, CLARITO ROBLES, GUILLERMO MILLARIN, ET AL. AND INOCENTES TUBIANOSA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF LA C…

This is a petition for review of the decision of the defunct Court of
Appeals, affirming the judg­ment of the then Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, which upheld petitioners’ separation from their
respective employments in the city govern­ment of La Carlota City.

It appears that on July 20, 1968, the municipal board of La Carlota City
unanimously approved Ordinance No. 49, providing for the city’s budget
for the fiscal year 1968-1969. In said budget the positions of several
employees, including those of petitioners, were abolished, resulting in
the termination of their employments. Petitioners claim that their
separation from the service was done in bad faith and without valid
cause.

Brushing aside petitioners’ contention, the respondent court found that
the abolition of the petitioners’ positions in the budget and the
subse­quent termination of their employment were due to lack of funds
and, therefore, done in good faith. It explained why.

“That the City of La Carlota was direly lacking in funds not only
for salaries was testified to by the city auditor, who presented
documents in Court to that effect. Thus, the city trial balance sheet as
of Decem­ber 21, 1967 (Exh. 8) showed an over­draft of P166,195.45
(Exh. 8-A) shortly before defendant city mayor assumed office on January
1, 1968; a certifi­cation (Exh. 23) of the city treasurer showed an
over-all financial obligation of the city in the sum of P997,729.19 as
of December 31, 1967, including P276,720.40 for unpaid wages and
sala­ries for the months of June, October, November and December, 1967
(Exh. 21), and the cash report of the cashier as of January 2, 1968
(Exh. 30) indicated that the city had an available fund of only P224.01
in cash and P4,858.13 on deposit. It was also shown that a loan of
P120,000.00 was sought from the Philippine National Bank to pay wages
and salaries of the employees, but the department of finance
dis­approved the same because the city had yet to pay an outstanding
budgetary loan of P150,000.00 due in September, 1967 to the Central
Bank. The City also failed to remit to the Government Service Insurance
System the sum of P157,475.84, representing payments for life and
retirement premiums and salary loan repayments of the city employees for
the period from September, 1967, to October, 1968 (Exh. 14). For the
period ending June, 1968, as shown by the city trial balance sheet for
this period, the city had an overdraft of P89,710.56 (Exhs. 13 and 13-A)
for the entire fiscal year 1967-1968; and at the end of the fiscal year
1968-1969, despite the lay-off of 99 city employees as previously
stated, the city government still had an overdraft of P48,689.76 (Exh.
29).

“From the above figures indicating the critical financial
condition of the city, it cannot be said that the aboli­tion of
appellants’ positions, and those of the rest of the 99 city employees,
in the 1968-1969 budget was politically motivated or done in bad faith.
It appears that of the 18 employees in the office of the city mayor
whose positions were also abolished, not one of them was retained or
reappointed. In fact, not one of the 99 laid-off employees, including
appellants herein, was replaced. The lay-off was in response to the
recommendation of the department heads, particularly that of the city
auditor, as shown in his letter to the city treasurer dated December 29,
1967 (Exh. 7) and in his letter to the city mayor dated January 8, 1968
(Exh. 9). Up to the present, the abolished positions of the laid-off
employees have not been restored or re-created.

“It is important to note that the abolition of the unnecessary
positions in the budget for the fiscal year 1968-­1969 passed as
Ordinance No. 49, is an action which was unanimously approved despite
the fact that the members of the municipal board belonging to the
faction of the defendant mayor were in the minor­ity, and one of the
councilors, Rafael Marino, son of the outgoing mayor, Jaime Marino, even
voted for the abolition of unnecessary positions.”

We find no cogent reason to disturb the respondent court’s conclusions,
the same being fully supported by the evidence and in accord with the
applicable law and jurisprudence.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dis­missed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.