Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > June 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6534 June 16, 1953 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO PASCUAL

093 Phil 345:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6534. June 16, 1953.]

IRINEO V. BERNARDO, B. JOSE CASTILLO, AMABLE C. VICENCIO, NOLI MA. CORTES and AMADO B. DE LEON, Petitioners, v. HON. WENCESLAO PASCUAL, HON. AMADO GERVACIO and HON. VICENTE JAVIER, as members of the Provincial Board of Rizal, Respondents.

Lorenzo Sumulong and Isaac N. Lico, for Petitioners.

Jose P. Santos for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Prior to June 18, 1952, the petitioners, assistant provincial fiscals of Rizal, were receiving annual salaries fixed under section 1674 of the Administrative Code as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Irineo V. Bernardo, first assistant fiscal P3,000; B. Jose Castillo, second assistant fiscal P2,800; Amable C. Vicencio, assistant fiscal P2,400; Noli Ma. Cortes, assistant fiscal P2,400 and Amado B. de Leon, assistant fiscal P2,400.

On that date Republic Act No. 732 took effect augmenting the compensation of all assistant provincial fiscals in the Islands, according to the class to which the respective provinces belonged. Under said Act petitioners are entitled to P4,500, P4,250, P3,600, P3,600 and P3,600 respectively per annum, inasmuch as Rizal is a First-Class-A province.

In pursuance of the above-mentioned statute, the provincial fiscal of Rizal submitted in due course to the herein respondents, as members of the Provincial Board, a plantilla for his office fixing the salaries of his assistants at the increased rates. However the respondents, as the Provincial Board in approving the budget for the fiscal year July, 1952 to June 30, 1953, assigned salaries to petitioners at the old rates, instead of the increased amounts prescribed by Republic Act No. 732.

Thereafter upon protest of petitioners, the Department of Finance called respondents’ attention to the deficiency, suggesting at the same time the approval of a supplemental budget. And the provincial treasurer of Rizal, Mr. I. Susara, endorsing the stand of his chief, recommended that the additional amount of P9,029.85 "to cover up the deficiency in the current appropriation for salaries of the assistant fiscals" be appropriated. And he certified to the availability of funds for that particular expenditure.

Nevertheless the respondents failed or refused to pass the needed supplementary budget. Consequently this mandamus proceeding was instituted to compel the provincial board to provide for the requisite allotment.

Ordered to make answer, the respondents, acknowledging the "mandatory nature" of Republic Act 732, pleaded that its implementation depends upon the local finances, and that Rizal Province had "no sufficient available funds" from which to draw the additional compensation of its assistant prosecuting officers.

This defense the petitioners have shown to be actually without foundation. Firstly, they pointed to the indorsement of the provincial treasurer certifying to the availability of funds, quoted verbatim in the petition, which indorsement the respondents have not directly denied. Secondly, they showed that according to the Provincial Supplemental Budget, No. 6 (Annex 1) there was available for appropriation by the Board on December 29, 1952, the sum of P67,806.87 out of which the amount of P9,029.85 could be set aside.

The respondents, informing this court that they "have been constrained to abolish" several positions in the provincial government, strongly argue that it will be unjust "to those employees who have been laid off" if the recreation of their positions is not given priority over any increase of salaries. This seems to be the principal reason for respondents’ action or non-action. Indeed their counsel, during the oral argument, expressed the respondents’ feeling that before granting the increases, they should first restore the abolished positions.

Evidently the respondents assume that they have discretion to grant or not to grant the salary increases, just as they have to abolish or re-create some positions in the provincial plantilla. Such assumption is, however, erroneous. They have no discretion to appropriate or not to appropriate the amount necessary to pay the increased salaries. They are duty bound to make the appropriation — enough money being ready for use in the provincial coffers. Moral obligations or other political considerations should not stand in the way of the fulfillment of duties imposed by legislation which provincial boards are not at liberty to ignore.

Respondents’ final assertion that there are employees who have retired and must be paid, and that the sum of P25,000 must soon be delivered to the National Government for three irrigation pumps, constitutes no valid excuse. The amount of such retirement gratuity is not specified, probably because even if added to the P25,000-peso- debt, it would still leave sufficient balance from the P67,806.87 admittedly available as of December 29, 1952.

Petitioners made a clear case. Wherefore the respondents are hereby required to appropriate, without unnecessary delay, the sum above-indicated to satisfy the increased emoluments of said assistant fiscals. No costs.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5147 June 2, 1953 - ILDEFONSO ORTIZ v. HERMOGENES MANIA

    093 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-5384 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO VISAGAR

    093 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-6055 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA

    093 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-4568 June 16, 1953 - LA ORDEN DE PP. BENEDICTINOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. J. A. STIVER, ET AL.

    093 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. L-6534 June 16, 1953 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO PASCUAL

    093 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-5704 June 17, 1953 - REGINO CRUZ v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    093 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-5960 June 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COMISION DE SERVICIO PUBLICO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-6512 June 19, 1953 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. MARCIANO ROQUE, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-5701 June 23, 1953 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    093 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-5003 June 27, 1953 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. QUEZON COLLEGE, INC.

    093 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-5085 June 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTA G. DE HILARIO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5085

  • G.R. No. L-4920 June 29, 1953 - FRANCISCO DIANA, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO.

    093 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-4770 June 30, 1953 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO v. BRAULIO SANTOS

    093 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-4824 June 30, 1953 - LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY v. IRINEO BALTAZAR

    093 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-5303 June 30, 1953 - KONG CHAI PIN v. ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY

    093 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-5436 June 30, 1953 - ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-5531 June 30, 1953 - FELIX DE VILLA v. CESAREO A FABRICANTE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-5834 June 30, 1953 - ISAGANI GALANG v. JUANA PANGAN VDA. DE REYES

    093 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-5858 June 30, 1953 - FILOMENA JUZON DE PO, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-6120 June 30, 1953 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS v. FELICISIMO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-6411 June 30, 1953 - HERMENEGILDO OMEGA, ET AL. v. HON. JUEZ ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 457