ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 190 September 26, 1964 - MARCOS MEDINA v. LORETO U. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17405 September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19132 September 26, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO CAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-17069 September 28, 1964 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-18421 September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

  • G.R. No. L-18817 September 28, 1964 - ANTONIO G. TADY-Y v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18865 September 28, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN S. ALANO

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-22626 September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-16252 September 29, 1964 - ROSARIO MAS v. ELISA DUMARA-OG

  • G.R. No. L-17097 September 29, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-19776 September 29, 1964 - BENJAMIN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19957 September 29, 1964 - ELIAS AGUSTIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO E. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. L-14888 September 30, 1964 - MERCEDES CLEMENTE v. JOVITO BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. L-15418 September 30, 1964 - WEST LEYTE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. ADELAIDO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-17029 September 30, 1964 - SAMUEL S. SHARRUF v. FRANK BUBLA

  • G.R. No. L-17194 September 30, 1964 - PRIMITIVO SATO v. SIMEON RALLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17960 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: SY CHHUT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18596 September 30, 1964 - ALVAREZ MALAGUIT v. FELIX ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. L-18674 September 30, 1964 - FLORENTINA CALMA v. JOSE MONTUYA

  • G.R. No. L-19107-09 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: LAO YAP HAN DIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19419 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19583 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ONG BON KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. L-19709 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 September 30, 1964 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19830 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: PAUL TEH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20077 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PACOMIO

  • G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20146 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO OPLADO

  • G.R. No. L-20150 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN DOCTOR y DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-17405   September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-17405. September 26, 1964.]

    JOSE AGUDO, JR., Petitioner-Appellee, v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA, in his capacity as City Attorney of Butuan City, FRANCISCO MAGNO, in his capacity as Acting City Treasurer, and JUANITO SAGARAL, in his capacity as City Auditor, Respondents-Appellants. RICARDO S. CASTILLO, Intervenor-Appellant.

    F.R. Cupin, T.O. Calo, Jr., J. Gonzales, W.B. Rosales & J. Agudo, Jr. for Petitioner-Appellee.

    J. Ong Oh, Jr. & S.F. Pugot for Intervenor-Appellant.

    City Attorney Jose R. Villanueva in his own behalf and for other Respondents-Appellants.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; APPOINTMENTS; ADDITION OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS DOES NOT DETRACT FROM VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT. — Where the position as created by the municipal board appears in the budget as Special Counsel, the fact that the appointment in question as extended is that of "Special Counsel (Investigator Researcher)", is held to be of no importance since there is no doubt as to the identity of the position and the words "investigator-researcher" are obviously descriptive only of the duties that the appointee is supposed to discharge and are not meant to refer to another position which did not exist at all.

    2. ID.; ID.; WAIVER OF CLAIM TO SALARY BY ACCEPTANCE OF ANOTHER POSITION. — The act of a person during the pendency of his appeal in a case contesting the right of another to an office, in drawing the salary pertaining to a different position subsequently created, is held to amount to a waiver of his alleged right to the salary pertaining to the office in question.

    3. MANDAMUS; WHEN RIGHT TO SALARY OF CITY OFFICIAL MAY BE ENFORCED BY MANDAMUS; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, considering that the position to which the petitioner was appointed by the City Mayor has been created by the municipal board and is payable from local funds; that the petitioner’s appointment has been attested by the City Treasurer as representative of the Civil Service Commissioner; that according to Section 8 of Republic Act 2264, an appointment made by the City Mayor shall become effective upon such attestation and the appointee shall then be entitled to collect the rate of compensation fixed in his appointment; and that the respondents have in fact recognized the validity of the petitioner’s appointment by paying his salary for a period prior to his filing the action (from January 14 to February 15, 1960) the trial court committed no error in issuing the writ of mandamus prayed for, such payment being a ministerial duty enjoined by law.


    D E C I S I O N


    MAKALINTAL, J.:


    In the budget of the City of Butuan for 1958-59, two positions of special counsel in the office of the City Attorney were authorized. One of them, vacated upon the promotion of the incumbent Attorney Francisco P. Parcon, was filled by Attorney Jose C. Agudo, Jr., petitioner-appellee, by virtue of an appointment extended to him by the City Mayor on January 12, 1960. This position carries a salary of P3,720 per annum. Agudo assumed office on January 14; his appointment was attested by the City Treasurer in the latter’s capacity as representative of the Commissioner of Civil Service, pursuant to Section 8 of the Local Autonomy Act, R.A. 2264; and Agudo was paid his salary from January 14 to February 15, 1960.

    On January 20, 1960, the Secretary of Justice, acting on the strength of section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, appointed Attorney Ricardo S. Castillo to the same position. Castillo took his oath of office the following February 8 and thereafter presented a voucher for his salary to the City Treasurer. Confronted with the dilemma of two appointees to one office, that official refused to honor the voucher and stopped payment of Agudo’s salary after February 15, 1960. Agudo continued rendering service and on February 23, 1960 filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Agusan against the City Attorney, Jose R. Villanueva; the City Treasurer, Francisco Magno; and the City Auditor, Juanito Sagaral, to compel them to certify, pass in audit and pay the salary of the petitioner. Ricardo S. Castillo intervened, with leave of court, alleging that he was entitled to receive the salary corresponding to the position.

    The trial court rendered judgment for the petitioner on March 31, 1960 and dismissed the claim of the intervenor. From that judgment the respondents appealed in due time. The intervenor, on his part, was found by this Court to have failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period (resolution of January 9, 1961) and hence the judgment became final as far as he was concerned.

    Appellants challenge the petitioner’s right to the salary claimed by him on the ground that while the position created by the municipal board appears in the budget as that of Special Counsel, the appointment extended to the petitioner is that of "Special Counsel (Investigator-Researcher)." The point is of no importance. There can be no doubt at all as to the identify of the position, since the appointment itself carries the words "vice Attorney Francisco P. Parcon," who was the former incumbent. The words "investigator- researcher" are obviously descriptive only of the duties that the appointee was supposed to discharge and are meant to refer to another position which did not exist at all. It should be observed here that the position in question was not created by resolution or ordinance but simply included in the budget of the city of Butuan, without a description of its powers and duties. Hence, the descriptive words aforementioned must have been added for clarity and convenience.

    It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, the municipal board of Butuan City passed two resolutions (No. 713, June 27, 1960; No. 770, Sept. 26, 1960) appropriating certain sums of money to pay for the services of Attorney Ricardo S. Castillo up to October 30, 1960; and on December 27, 1960, another board resolution (No. 822) was approved by the City Mayor creating one additional position of Special Counsel in the office of the City Attorney, from the appropriation for which position Castillo has since been drawing his salary. In view of this development, which amounts to a waiver by Castillo of his claim to the salary pertaining to the office in question as well as of the fact that the dismissal of said claim by the trial court has become final and is now before us on appeal, the only issue to be resolved is whether the respondents are in duty bound to pay the salary of the petitioner.

    Considering that the position to which the petitioner was appointed by the City Mayor has been created by the municipal board and is payable from local funds; that the petitioner’s appointment has been attested by the City Treasurer as representative of the Civil Service Commissioner; that according to Section 8 of Republic Act 2264, an appointment made by the City Mayor shall become effective upon such attestation and the appointee shall then be entitled to collect the rate of compensation filed in his appointment and that the respondents have in fact recognized the validity of the petitioner’s appointment by paying his salary from January 14 to February 15, 1960, the trial court committed no error in issuing the writ prayed for, such payment being a ministerial duty enjoined by law.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed without pronouncement as to costs.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

    Barrera, J., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-17405   September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED