OSMUNDO G. RAMA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE ABALA, MELCHOR ABANGAN, EUTIQUIO ALEGRADO, EMIGDIO BLANCO, ISABELO CABUENAS, CESAR CAMILLO, JOSE CENIZA, ANDRES CAMPANA, …

During the incumbency of Rene Espina as
provincial governor of Cebu, Osmundo G. Rama as vice-governor
and Pablo P. Garcia, Reynaldo M. Mendoza and Valeriano
S. Carillo as members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, said
officials adopted Resolution No. 990 which appropriated funds “for the
maintenance and repair of provincial roads and bridges and for the operation and
maintenance of the office of the provincial engineer and for other
purposes”.  (L-44591 Rollo, pp. 34-37).

In said resolution, the provincial government of Cebu under the aforementioned officials, declared its policy
“to mechanize the maintenance and repair of all roads and bridges of the
province (including provincial roads and bridges receiving national aid ‘JJ’),
to economize in the expenditure of its Road and Bridge Fund for the maintenance
and repair of provincial roads and bridges receiving national aid ‘JJ’ and to
adopt a more comprehensive, systematic, efficient, progressive and orderly
operation and maintenance of the Office of the Provincial
Engineer”.

To implement said policy, the provincial board
resolved to abolish around thirty positions^[1] the salaries of which were paid from the
‘JJ’ Road and Bridge Fund thus doing away with the caminero
(pick-shovel-wheelbarrow) system.  Consequently, around 200
employees of the province were eased out of their respective jobs and, to
implement the mechanization program in the maintenance of roads and bridges, the
provincial government purchased heavy equipment worth P4,000,000.00.  However, contrary to its declared
policy to economize, the provincial administration later on hired around one
thousand new employees, renovated the office of the provincial engineer and
provided the latter with a Mercedes-Benz car (Decision in CA-G.R. No. 49328-R,
L-44591 Rollo, p. 37).

Aggrieved by these turn of events, the employees whose positions
were abolished filed separate petitions for mandamus, damages and
attorney’s fees aimed at the annulment of Resolution No. 990, their
reinstatement and the recovery of damages.  The aforementioned
provincial officials who, together with the provincial auditor, provincial
treasurer, provincial engineer and the province of Cebu, were named respondents in said action, were sued “both
in their official and personal” capacities as a result of their alleged “unjust,
oppressive, illegal and malicious’ acts (Petition, Record in Civil Case No.
R-10704, p. 3).

In Civil Case No. R-10704, the Court of
First Instance of Cebu declared Resolution No. 990
null and void and ordered the respondent officials to re-create the positions
abolished, to provide funds therefore, to reinstate the 56 petitioners headed by
Jose Abala, and to pay them back salaries. 
For “lack of legal and factual basis”, no damages were awarded to
petitioners and no pronouncement as to attorney’s fees were made as the
petitioners had agreed to pay their lawyers 30% of whatever amount they would
receive as back salaries (L-44591 Rollo, pp.
33-34).

All the parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No.
49328-R).  Eventually, said appellate court, through its First
Division, affirmed the lower court’s decision with the modification that
respondents were ordered to pay jointly and severally in their “individual and
personal capacity” P1,000.00 moral damages to each of the petitioners
considering that the case involved a quasi-delict (L-44591 Rollo, p. 54).

From that decision, Osmundo G.
Rama, interposed an appeal to this Court (G.R. No.
L-44484).  Espina, Garcia, Mendiola and Carillo then filed their own petition for review (G.R. No.
L-44591).  But before Espina, et al. could file said petition, the
province of
Cebu and its
Sangguniang Panlalawigan
filed their own petition for review questioning that portion of the appellate
court’s decision which ordered the reinstatement with back salaries of the
dismissed employees.  Said petition, which was
docketed as G.R. No. L-44572, was dismissed by
this Court for lack of merit in the resolution of October 25, 1976. 
Entry of judgment was made on November 24,
1976.

Meanwhile, dismissed employees Froilan Frondoso and Jeremias Luna, who also had filed their own petition for
mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, elevated their case to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
No. SP-04649).  In its decision, the Court
of Appeals’ Ninth Division followed the ruling of its First Division in CA?G.R.
No. 48328-R, held that the wrong committed by the respondent public officials
was a quasi-delict, and ordered the reinstatement with back salaries of
Frondoso and Luna and the payment in
solidum by respondent public officials of P1,000.00 each to Frondoso and Luna as moral damages plus P1,000.00 as
attorney’s fees.  With the exception of Rama, the respondent public officials appealed to this
Court (G.R. No. L-44842). 
Subsequently, the Cebu Assistant Provincial
Attorney, representing the Province of Cebu and its
Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
also appealed to this Court from that decision (G.R. No. L-44894).

On March 28,
1977, this Court resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. L-44484, L-44842,
L-44591 and L-44894 considering that said cases involve the same issues and
factual background (L-44591 Rollo, p.
344).

Thereafter, Frondoso and Luna filed a
motion to dismiss L-44894 and L-44842.  They alleged that as the
petition in L-44572 had been dismissed on October 25, 1976, said two cases
should likewise be dismissed because they, together with the private respondents
in L-44572 who, like them, were also permanent appointees to their respective
positions, “were separated from the service on the same date by the
same petitioners” (L-44894 Rollo, p. 140) and
therefore, the petitions in L-44894 and L-44842 were barred by the rule of
stare decisis.

The motion to dismiss, however, was noted in the resolution of
February 17, 1978, it appearing that
said two cases had already been submitted for decision (L-44894 Rollo, p. 148; L-44842 Rollo, p. 139).  Frondoso and Luna filed another motion to dismiss L-44894
but after the petitioners had filed their comment thereon, said motion to
dismiss was also noted in the resolution of February 22, 1981 (L-44894 Rollo, p. 186).

We find, however, that Frondoso’s
and Luna’s contention that L-44894 should be dismissed is meritorious. 
The issues raised in L-44894 and L-44572 are the
same.  In fact, the prayer in the petition in L-44894 is
virtually a verbatim reiteration of that in L-44572.  The
allegation of petitioner province of
Cebu and
its Sangguniang Panlalawigan
that the question of jurisdiction was not raised in L-44572 (L-44894 Rollo, p. 150) cannot successfully save L-44894
from dismissal.  In their petition, the
province of Cebu and its Sangguniang Panlalawigan merely
argued that the Court of Appeals did not acquire jurisdiction over the case,
considering that Frondoso and Luna’s appeal was
perfected after the expiration of the reglementary
period and that their brief was filed one month too late.

However, the trend of the rulings of this Court in matters
pertaining to the timeliness of the perfection of an appeal is to afford every
party-litigant amplest opportunity to present their case “for the proper and
just determination of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.”
(Rodriquez vs. Court of Appeals, L-37522, November
28, 1975, 68 SCRA 262).  Applying the above ruling to this
case, the Court of Appeals may not, therefore, be faulted for assuming
jurisdiction over the appeal of Frondoso and Luna.

Hence, with respect to L-44894, this Court is bound by the
dismissal of L-44572 and so L-44894 should likewise be dismissed, as it is
hereby dismissed.

Proceeding now to resolve the issue, common to L-44484, L-44591
and L-44842, which is whether or not Espina, Rama, Garcia, Mendiola and Carillo are personally liable for damages for adopting a
resolution which abolished positions to the detriment of the occupants thereof,
this Court has held that, at least, in principle, a public officer by
virtue of his office alone, is not immune from damages in his personal capacity
arising from illegal acts done in bad faith.  A different rule
would sanction the use of public office as a tool of oppression (Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, L-16290,
October 31, 1961, 3 SCRA 413).

Thus, in Correa vs. CFI of Bulacan, L-46096,
July 30,
1979, 92 SCRA 312, We held
personally liable a mayor who illegally dismissed policemen even if he had
relinquished his position.  Therein, We
held that:

“A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act, done in
excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office and is
personally liable therefor like any private individual
(Palma vs. Graciano, 99 Phil. 72, 74; Carreon vs. Province of Pampanga, 99 Phil.
808).  This principle of personal liability has been applied to
cases where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an employee
wrongfully, the reported cases saying that by reason of non-compliance with the
requirements of law in respect to removal from office, the officials were acting
outside of their official authority (Stiles vs. Lowell, 233 Mass. 174,
123 NE 615, 4 ALR 1365, cited in 63 Am. Jur. 2d.
770).”

We hold that the petitioners in the instant three cases are
personally liable for damages because of their precipitate dismissal of
provincial employees through an ostensibly legal means.

The Court of Appeals, whose factual findings are binding on
this Court, found that the provincial employees concerned were “eased out
because of their party affiliation”.  i.e., they belonged
to the Liberal Party whose presidential candidate then was Sergio Osmena, Jr. (CA Decision in G.R. No. 49328-R, p. 6, L-44591
Rollo, p. 38).  Such act of the
petitioners reflected their malicious intent to do away with the followers of
the rival political party so as to accommodate their own proteges who, it turned out, even outnumbered the dismissed
employees.

Indeed, municipal officers are liable for damages if they act
maliciously or wantonly, and if the work which they perform is done rather to
injure an individual than to discharge a public duty (56 Am. Jur. 2d 334, citing Yealy V. Fink,
43 Pa 212).  As we have held in Vda. de  Laig vs. Court of Appeals,
L-26882, April 5, 1978, 82 SCRA 294, 307-308, a public officer is civilly liable
for failure to observe honesty and good faith in the performance of their duties
as public officers or for wilfully or negligently
causing damage to another (Article 20, Civil Code) or for wilfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs and/or public policy (Article 21, New Civil
Code).

Neither can petitioners shield themselves from liability by
invoking the ruling in the cases of Carino vs. Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Financing Administration, L-23966, May 22, 1969, 28 SCRA 268. 
In those cases, the erring public officials were sued in their official
capacities whereas in the instant cases, petitioners were specifically sued in
their personal capacities.

For their part, the dismissed employees are entitled to damages
because they have suffered a special and peculiar injury from the wrongful act
of which they complain (Mechem, A Treatise on the Law
of Public Offices and Officers, p. 391).  It is an undeniable
fact that the dismissed employees who were holding such positions as foremen,
watchmen and drivers, suffered the uncertainties of the unemployed when they
were plucked out of their positions.  That not all of them
testified as to the extent of damages they sustained on account of their
separation from their government jobs, cannot be used
as a defense by the petitioners.  Suffice it to state that
considering the positions they were holding, the dismissed employees concerned
belong to a low-salaried group, who, if deprived of wages would generally incur
considerable economic hardships.

Justice demands that they be recompensed for the predicament they
were placed in, apart from the back salaries which they are entitled to as a
matter of right.  We are inclined to agree that the amount of
P1,000.00 damages granted to
each of them by the Court of Appeals was fixed by that court judiciously and is
a reasonable sum (Article 2216, Civil Code).

Petitioner Rama’s protestations that
when he eventually became the governor of Cebu, he reinstated most of the dismissed
employees through provincial board Resolution No. 392 (L-44484 Rollo, p. 16) cannot erase the fact that he had a
hand in the adoption of Resolution No. 990.  His subsequent
benevolent act cannot sufficiently make up for the damage suffered by the
dismissed employees during their period of unemployment.

Apropos the practice of victorious politicians to remove
government employees who did not support them in their campaign for office, this
Court has said:  “There are altogether too many cases of this
nature, wherein local elective officials, upon assumption to office, wield
their new-found power indiscriminately by replacing employees with their
own proteges regardless of the laws and regulations
governing the civil service.  Victory at the polls should not be
taken as authority for the commission of such illegal acts.” (Nemenzo vs. Sabillano,
L-20977, September 7, 1968, 25 SCRA 1).

WHEREFORE, in L-44894, the petition for review on
certiorari is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.  In
L-44484, L-44591 and L-44842, the decision of the First and Ninth Divisions of
the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with costs against the petitioners.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1] Highway maintenance, general foreman,
highway maintenance capataces, construction helpers,
bridge foreman, field checkers, materials checkers, supplies checkers,
road-right-of-way agent, chief watchman, watchmen, camp watchmen, security
guards, checker-timekeepers, typists, timekeeper-mechanics, autoshop foreman, automotive foreman, automotive servicemen,
latheman-mechanics, latheman-operators, painters, electricians, blacksmiths,
automotive mechanics, senior mechanics, mechanics, assistant mechanics,
driver-mechanics and mechanic-drivers.