Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23812. April 30, 1966.]

PRIMO T. OCAMPO, OLIVER G. CABEL, RODOLFO D. RODRIGO, FRANCISCO R. RODRIGO, CONRADO M. SORIANO, GRACIANO G. GAYAPA, JR., and DIOSDADO VILLARIN, JR., Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ANTONIO VILLAR, HUGO E. SANSANO, ANTONIO DE GUZMAN, and PEDRO CABUAY, as Governor, Vice-Governor and Members of the Provincial Board of the Province of Pangasinan, Respondents.

Jose W. Diokno, for Petitioners.

Solicitor General A.A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor O.C. Fernandez, for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; SPECIAL COUNSELS; ILLEGAL REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; TENURE OF OFFICE; CASE AT BAR. — The abolition of the positions of the petitioners as special counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, pursuant to Resolution No. 598 which was approved by the Provincial Board on June 15, 1964 but made to take effect on July 1, 1964, is illegal. Republic Act No. 4007 which took effect on June 18, 1964, provides among others, that special counsels who had served in office continuously and efficiently for at least four years, shall be deemed to have been permanently appointed; and may be removed or separated from the service only for cause as provided for by the civil service law, rules or regulations. The petitioners had complied with the requirements of said law, all of them having served as special counsels continuously and efficiently for more than four years. Upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 4007, therefore, petitioners had become regular and permanent appointees and may be removed or separated from the service only for cause as provided for by the civil service law, rules and regulations. The provisions of Resolution No. 598 of the Provincial Board, abolishing the positions of the petitioners, are repugnant to the spirit and the expressed provisions of Republic Act No. 4007.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT HEAD; LACK OF NOTICE OF ABOLITION OF OFFICE. — Resolution No. 598 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, and with the Civil Service Law. Section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "abolition of positions shall not take effect except upon approval by the Secretary of Finance." Here, the Secretary of Finance approved the annual budget of the province, subject to the condition that the abolition of positions indicated therein had been authorized on the ground that the positions abolished are not necessarily and could be dispensed with without hampering the essential services of the province. The approval by the Secretary of Finance was, therefore conditional. It does not appear, however, that the condition had been fulfilled. Under Rule VIII, Sec. 5 of the Civil Service Rules, promulgated by authority of Sec. 24(g) of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. 2260), all proposed separations or demotions of permanent employees on account of reduction in force shall be submitted to the head of the Department for approval. There is no showing at all that the Secretary of Justice, who is the head of the Department to which the office of the provincial fiscal belongs, had approved the separation of the petitioners, and neither is it shown that he had certified that the positions of the petitioners are not necessary and could be dispensed with without hampering the essential service of the province. Also, petitioners were not given previous notice of the abolition of their positions which had the effect of separating them from the service.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABOLITION OF POSITION IN BAD FAITH. — The abolition of the positions of petitioners was not done in good faith. The reason given by the respondents in abolishing said positions is based on alleged "retrenchment policy." However, respondents included in the annual budget new and/or additional items of appropriation far in excess of the amount needed to cover the salaries of the petitioners.

4. ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF PROVINCIAL BOARD TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR SALARIES OF SPECIAL COUNSEL; EFFECT OF. — From the time that Republic Act No. 4007 took effect, it became the duty of the respondents to comply with that law by maintaining the petitioners in office and by providing appropriations for their salaries in accordance with the said law. To sanction the act of the respondents in abolishing petitioners’ positions is to allow them to disregard the law. The respondent members of the Provincial Board have no discretion whether to appropriate or not the amount needed to cover the salaries of the petitioners. The law has imposed on them a duty which they are not at liberty to ignore. In failing to include item or items in the annual budget to cover appropriations for the salaries of the petitioners, the respondents have unlawfully failed or neglected the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from office.


D E C I S I O N


ZALDIVAR, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents who compose the Provincial Board of the province of Pangasinan to appropriate funds needed to pay the salaries of petitioners whose positions as Special Counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan were abolished by respondents by eliminating the appropriation for those offices from the 1964-65 annual budget of the province.

The petitioners were appointed Special Counsels pursuant to Sec. 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, to assist the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan in the prosecution no of any specified case or types of cases but of all cases in general. Inasmuch as the right asserted by the petitioner in the present case is based upon the length of service that they had performed as Special Counsels, there is need of stating the length of the respective service of each one as of July 1, 1964, when the annual budget of the province of Pangasinan for the fiscal year 1964-65 took effect.

Petitioner Primo T. Ocampo was appointed by the Secretary of Justice on July 6, 1954, he took his oath of office on July 13, 1954, so that on July 1, 1964 he had been 9 years and 10 months in the service.

Petitioner Oliver G. Cabel was appointed on March 14, 1956, he took his oath on March 28, 1956, so that on July 1, 1964 he had been 8 years and 3 months in the service.

Petitioner Rodolfo V. Rodrigo was appointed on October 9, 1958, he took his oath on October 21, 1958, so that on July 1, 1964 he had been 5 years and 8 months in the service.

Petitioner Francisco R. Rodrigo was appointed on October 9, 1958, he took his oath on October 23, 1958, so that on July 1, 1964 he had been 5 years and 8 months in the service.

Petitioner Conrado M. Soriano was appointed on April 10, 1959, he took his oath on June 1, 1959, so that on July 1, 1964, he had been 5 years and 1 month in the service.

Petitioner Graciano P. Cayapa, Jr. was appointed on August 24, 1959, he took his oath on August 26, 1959, so that on July 1, 1964, he had been 4 years and 10 months in the service.

Petitioner Diosdado Villarin, Jr. was appointed on December 18, 1959, he took his oath of office on January 2, 1960, so that on July 1, 1964 he had been in the service for 4 years and 6 months.

On August 30, 1963, by Administrative Order No. 329 signed by Secretary of Justice Salvador L. Marino, all these seven petitioners were extended promotional appointment as Special Counsel "to assist the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan in the discharge of his duties, with compensation at the rate of six thousand three hundred pesos (P6,300.00) per annum, payable by the province of Pangasinan, effective July 1, 1963." This appointment was a promotion in salary from P4,200.00 to P6,300.00 per annum.

The salaries of these seven petitioners at the rate of P6,300.00 per annum were provided for in supplemental budget of the province of Pangasinan for the fiscal year 1963-64.

On June 15, 1964 the respondents, Francisco Duque, Governor of the province of Pangasinan; Antonio Villar, Vice-Governor, and Hugo B. Sansano, Antonio de Guzman and Pedro Cabuay, Members of the Provincial Board of the province of Pangasinan, without any previous notice to the petitioners, approved and adopted Resolution No. 598 which provided, among others, for the abolition of the positions of seven special counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal at the rate of P6,300.00 per annum each. The effectivity of Resolution No. 598 was set for July 1, 1964, along with the effectivity of the provincial budget of the province of Pangasinan for the fiscal year 1964-1965 which had yet to be submitted to the Secretary of Finance for approval.

The reason advanced by the respondents in abolishing the positions of the seven Special Counsels, as stated in Resolution No. 598, was "considering its retrenchment policy, taking into account the amortization of the overdraft be provided for as required by the Department of Finance."

On June 18, 1964, or three days after the respondent members of the Provincial Board had approved Resolution No. 598, but thirteen days before the effectivity date of said resolution, the President of the Philippines approved House Bill No. 7602 of the Congress of the Philippines, which thereby took effect on that day as Republic Act No. 4007. This new law amends Sec. 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code to read as follows (the amending provisions are capitalized):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 1686. Additional counsel to assist fiscal. — The Secretary of Justice may appoint any lawyer in the government service, or a competent person not in the public service, temporarily to assist a fiscal or prosecuting attorney in the discharge of his duties, and with the same authority therein as might be exercised by the Solicitor General: Provided, That if the person to be appointed in the public service is outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, such appointment may only be made with the consent of the Department Head concerned: PROVIDED, FURTHER THAT AFTER A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO IS NOT IN ANOTHER GOVERNMENT SERVICE IS APPOINTED OR DESIGNATED TO ASSIST THE PROVINCIAL OR CITY FISCAL IN THE PROSECUTION NO OF A SPECIFIED CASE OR CASES BUT OF CASES IN GENERAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGULAR DISCHARGE OF SAID PROVINCIAL OR CITY FISCAL’S DUTIES, AND SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND EFFICIENTLY SERVED AS SUCH FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS, HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY APPOINTED; AND HE MAY BE REMOVED OR SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE ONLY FOR A CAUSE AS PROVIDED FOR BY THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS.

"In addition to travel expenses, such appointee, if not in the government service, shall receive such compensation as shall be stipulated for, not exceeding thirty pesos a day for the time employed: PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT AFTER SIX MONTHS OF CONTINUOUS AND EFFICIENT SERVICE A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED OR DESIGNATED TO ASSIST THE PROVINCIAL OR CITY FISCAL IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS REGULAR DUTIES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE ENTITLED TO THE RATE OF SALARY PROVIDED FOR BY LAW FOR THE LOWEST RANK OR GRADE OF ASSISTANT FISCAL IN THE PROVINCE OR CITY."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 7, 1964, having learned of the elimination of the appropriation for their positions from the 1964-65 annual budget for the province of Pangasinan, and being aware of their rights under R.A. No. 4007, the petitioners jointly addressed a letter to the respondents, through the Provincial Fiscal, calling the attention of the respondents to the enactment of R.A. No. 4007 which took effect on June 18, 1964 and to the petitioner’s length of service which qualified them for a permanent tenure of office under said R.A. No. 4007. In that letter the petitioners informed the respondents that all of them had already served as Special Counsel for more than 4 years, and in fact two of them had served for more than 6 years. The petitioners then requested the respondents, pursuant to R.A. No. 4007 "to include our items in the general appropriation or in a supplemental budget." This letter of the petitioners was endorsed to the respondents by the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan on July 9, 1964, "recommending favorable consideration of the same." The respondents did not answer petitioners’ letter of July 7, 1964. Neither did the respondents comply with the request of petitioners to include their items in the general appropriation or in the supplemental budget for the province of Pangasinan for the fiscal year 1964-65.

On July 20, 1964 the Secretary of Finance approved the general fund budget of the province of Pangasinan for the fiscal year 1964-65, effective as of the date the Provincial Board of Pangasinan had fixed for its effectivity (July 1, 1964) subject to the condition "that the abolition of positions indicated in the subject general fund annual budget had been authorized on the ground that the positions abolished are not necessary and could be dispensed with without hampering the essential service of the province."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is not shown that the Secretary of Justice, who is the head of the Department to which office of the Provincial Fiscal belongs, had authorized or approved the abolition of the positions of the seven Special Counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan.

The salaries of the seven petitioners herein under their promotional appointments (P6,300.00 per annum each), and the benefits accorded by R.A. No. 4007 to those among them who had served continuously and efficiently for 6 years would amount to P47,215.81, computed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Petitioner Primo T. Ocampo and Oliver G. Cabel, at P7,200.00 per annum from July 1, 1964 (the lowest grade of Assistant Provincial Fiscal under R.A. No. 4142, they having served as special counsel for 6 years) plus salary differential from June 23, 1964 (When R.A. No. 4142 took effect) to June 30, 1964 at P20.00 each P14,400.00

(b) Petitioner Rodolfo Rodrigo at P6,300.00 per annum from July 1 to October 21, 1964, and at P7,200.00 per annum thereafter as he completes his sixth year of service 6,956.45

(c) Petitioner Francisco Rodrigo, at P6,300.00 per annum from July 1 to October 23, 1964, and at P7,200.00 per annum thereafter as he completes his sixth year of service 6,919.36

(d) Petitioners Conrado M. Soriano, Graciano P. Cayapa, Jr. and Diosdado Villarin, Jr. at P6,300.00 per annum 18,900.00

Total P47,215.81

The amount of P47,215.81 is the item that should have been included in the 1964-65 annual budget of the province of Pangasinan to cover the salaries of the seven petitioners herein had the respondents not eliminated the positions of these petitioners from the annual budget.

An examination and/or comparison of the 1963-64 and the 1964-65 annual budgets of the province of Pangasinan reveal the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) In the 1964-65 budget there is an item of P75,000 for discretionary fund of the Governor and P25,000 for discretionary fund of the members of the Provincial Board, or a total of P100,000.00. There was no similar appropriation in the 1963-64 budget.

(b) The 1964-65 budget shows an increase of P27,500.00, compared to the 1963-64 budget, in the appropriation for salaries of personnel in the office of the Governor. Thirty-two (32) positions more than what existed in the 1963-64 annual budget are provided for in the 1964-65 budget.

(c) There is an increase of P50,578.00 in the 1964-65 budget for the expenses for the office of the Governor and of the Provincial Board covering such items for travel and transportation, supplies and materials, and office equipments, compared to expenses for the same purposes in the 1963-64 budget.

(d) In the 1964-65 budget there are provided appropriations for ceramic projects in the amount of P20,000, fertilizer projects for P100,000, soya bean project for P3,000, or a total of P123,000.00. No items for these purposes appear in the 1963-64 budget.

(e) The total appropriations for the 1964-65 general fund, including the P215,485.00 appropriated for the appropriation of overdraft amounts to P1,989,506.00. Deduct from this the sum of P215,465.00 intended for amortization there is a net appropriation of P1,774,021.00. In the 1963-64 budget the general fund appropriation amounted to P1,518,333.28 (which did not include any payment for amortization, but had included the salaries of petitioners). Thus, there is an increase of P255,687.72 in the general fund appropriation for the fiscal year 1964-65, compared to the general fund appropriation for the fiscal year 1963-64.

While awaiting action by the respondents on the request contained in their letter of July 7, 1964 asking the respondents to include the items for their salaries either in the general fund budget or in the supplemental budget, the petitioners continued to stay in the office and performed their duties even if they were not receiving any salary. On November 14, 1964, the petitioners filed the petition for a writ of mandamus, now before Us.

The matter to be resolved by the Court in the present case is whether the action of the respondents, as members of the provincial board of Pangasinan, in approving resolution No. 598 abolishing the positions of the petitioners as special counsel and in failing to provide appropriation for the salaries corresponding to their positions in accordance with the existing laws had the effect of unlawfully excluding the petitioners from the use or enjoyment of a right or office to which they are entitled and that the respondents had thereby unlawfully neglected to perform an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from office.

We find that the petitioners have a clear right to the office of special counsel as of July 1, 1964 when resolution No. 598 of the provincial board of Pangasinan was intended to take effect. The petitioners had complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 4007, amending Sec. 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code — all of them having served as special counsel continuously and efficiently for more than four years; and under the provisions of said law they had acquired the status of permanent appointees and they may be removed or separated from the service only for cause as provided by the civil service law, rules and regulations.

This Court has held that it is a well established principle in the law of public administration that the power to establish an office includes the authority to abolish it unless there are constitutional or statutory expressly or impliedly providing otherwise. 1 Likewise, this Court has held that the power of a local government of abolish an office that it had created is subject to limitations, that is, that that power must be exercised in good faith not for personal or political reasons, and not in violations of the civil service law. 2

We find that the abolition of the positions of the petitioners by the respondents is contrary to law. Upon the enactment of R.A. No. 4007, the petitioners had become regular and permanent appointees and they may be removed or separated from the service only for cause as provided for by the civil service law, rules or regulations. The solicitor General himself says in his memorandum: "Evidently the purpose of R.A. 4007 was to give a fixity in the tenure of those who had served as served as special counsel, . . .who shall have continuously and efficiently served as such for at least four years." R.A. No. 4007 was precisely enacted by Congress to prevent the termination of the services of a special counsel through the abolition of his item by the provincial board or city board. The legislative intention, which must be given effect, is clearly understood upon reading of the explanatory note of H.B. No. 7602, which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This bill seeks to amend Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code so as to give security of tenure to special counsels designated by the Secretary of Justice to assist provincial and city fiscals in the prosecution of criminal cases and in the discharge of their regular duties.

"There are about 150 special counsels all over the Philippines. Many of them have been in the prosecution service for more than five years and have efficiently and capably prosecuted criminal cases. According to the Administrative Code, the service of special counsel are temporary and may therefore be terminated, with or without cause, through abolition of his item by the provincial board or city fiscal concerned.

"Special counsels perform the same work that assistant provincial and city fiscals do, yet their salaries are generally lower.

"This bill aims to grant permanent status to special counsels who have continuously and efficiently served the prosecution service for a long time and to give them better compensation after continuous efficient service of at least six years." (Italics supplied)

We hold, therefore, that the provisions of resolution No. 598, abolishing the positions of the petitioners, are repugnant to the spirit and the expressed provisions of R.A. No. 4007.

Resolution No. 598 was approved by the respondents on June 15, 1964 but it was made to take effect on July 1, 1964 when the annual budget of the province for the fiscal year 1964-1965 would also take effect. This resolution in question is what is usually called a "budget resolution" and it is implemented along with the budget to which it is related. On the other hand, R.A. No. 4007 took effect on June 18, 1964, so that on July 1, 1964 when Resolution No. 598 was made to take effect said R.A. No. 4007 was already in force. The Act of Congress certainly is superior over any resolution of a provincial board.

We also find that resolution No. 598 of the respondent Provincial Board is not in consonance with the provisions of section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by R.A. No. 1063, and with the Civil Service Law (R.A. 2260). Said section 2119 as amended, which specially deals with the budgets of provincial governments, provides that "abolition of positions shall not take effect except upon approval by the Secretary of Finance." The record shows that on July 20, 1964 the Secretary of Finance approved the 1964-1965 annual budget of the province of Pangasinan, subject to the condition "that the abolition of positions indicated in the subject general fund annual budget had been authorized on the ground that the positions abolished are not necessary and could be dispensed with without hampering the essential services of the province." The approval by the Secretary of Finance was conditional. It does not appear that the condition imposed by the Secretary had been fulfilled. It is not shown that before resolution No. 598 was passed the abolition of the positions of seven special counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal had been authorized as required by the Secretary of Finance in his letter to the Provincial Governor of July 20, 1964 approving the 1964-1965 budget of the province of Pangasinan. Under Rule VIII, Sec. 5 of the Civil Service Rules, promulgated by authority of Sec. 24(g) of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. 2260), "all proposed separations or demotions of permanent employees on account of reduction in force shall be submitted to the head of Department for approval, and employees affected shall be given at least 30 days written notice in advance of the affective date of reduction . . ." There is no showing at all that the Secretary of Justice, who is the head of the Department to which the office of the provincial fiscal of Pangasinan belongs, had approved the separation of the petitioners from the service on account of the reduction of force in the office of the Provincial Fiscal, and neither is it shown that the Secretary of Justice had certified that the positions of the petitioners are not necessary and could be dispensed with without hampering the essential services of the province. Also, it does not appear that the petitioners were given previous notice of the abolition of their positions which had the effect of separating them from the service.

We also hold, therefore, that the abolition of the positions of the petitioners was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by R.A. No. 1063, and the Civil Service Law (R.A. No. 2260).

We likewise find that the abolition of the positions of petitioners by the respondents was not done in good faith. The reason given by the respondents abolishing the positions of the petitioners, as stated in their resolution No. 598, is "considering its retrenchment policy, taking into account the amortization of the overdraft be provided for as required by the Department of Finance . . ." This reason, based on alleged "retrenchment policy", however, is belied by the very act of the respondents of including in the 1964- 1965 annual budget new and/or additional items of appropriations far in excess of the amount needed to cover the salaries of the petitioners. As we have adverted to at the early part of this decision, the annual budget of the general fund as approved by the respondents for the fiscal year 1964-1965 carried an appropriation of P75,000.00 for the discretionary fund of the Provincial Board, or a total of P100,000.00, but there was no similar appropriation in the budget of the preceding fiscal year; that in the 1964-1965 budget there is an increase of P47,500.00 in the appropriation for salaries of personnel in the office of the Governor as compared with the 1963- 1964 budget; that there is an increase of P47,500.00 in the appropriation for salaries of personnel in the office of the Governor as compared with the 1963-1964 budget; that there is an increase of P50,578.00 in the 1964-1965 budget for the expenses for the office of the Governor and the Provincial Board covering items for travel, transportation, supplies, materials, etc., compared with the appropriation for the same purposes in the 1963-1964 budget; that in the 1964-1965 budget there are items totaling P123,000.00 for projects which did not appear in the 1963-1964 budget; and that as a whole there is an increase of P255,637.72 in the general fund budget for the fiscal year 1964-1965 as compared to the general fund budget for the preceding fiscal year. The 1964-1965 budget, as approved by the respondents show that there existed an unappropriated excess of increase over expenses in the amount of P98,634.00. The reason of the respondents, in abolishing the positions of petitioner, based on the ground of "retrenchment policy" is, therefore, not justified by the inclusion of these new, or increased, items which are amounts in excess of the items that was needed to cover the salaries of the petitioners herein. There is reason to believe that the abolition of the positions of the petitioners by the respondents was motivated not by their desire to observe a "retrenchment policy." The abolition of the positions of the petitioners on the alleged ground of "retrenchment policy" in effect resulted in the removal of the petitioners from office without cause, in violation of the security of civil service tenure as provided in the Constitution and existing laws (Briones, Et Al., v. Osmena, supra.)

From the time that R.A. No. 4007 took effect on June 18, 1964, and it was thereby declared that the petitioners had become permanently appointed to their positions, it became the duty of the respondents to comply with that law by maintaining the petitioners in office and by providing appropriations for their salaries in accordance with the said law. To sanction the act of the respondents in abolishing petitioners’ positions is to allow them to discharge the law. Until Rep. Act 4007 is repealed, that law must be respected, obeyed and given effect. In the case of Bernardo v. Pascual, 93 Phil. 345, this Court held that it was the mandatory duty of the provincial board of Rizal to provide appropriation for the salary increases of the assistant provincial fiscals in the province of Rizal as provided in Republic Act 732. 3 We held in that case that the provincial board of Rizal has no discretion whether to appropriate or not to appropriate the amount needed to cover the increase in salaries of the officials concerned. In that case, this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

And so, in the present case, because R.A. 4007 provides that special counsels who have served continuously and efficiently for a period of at least four years are deemed to have been appointed permanently, and that special counsels who have served for at least six years are entitled to a salary equal to the rate of salary provided for by law for the lowest rank or grade of assistant fiscal in the province, the respondents, as members of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan, have no discretion whether to appropriate or not to appropriate the amount needed to cover the salaries of the petitioners. The law has imposed on the respondents a duty which they are not at liberty to ignore.

It is true that in the case of Rodriguez v. Montinola, 94 Phil. 965, this Court held that the Provincial Board of Pangasinan had power to abolish the position of three special counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal in that province, based on the principle in the law of public administration that the power to establish a public office carries with it the authority to abolish it, and that the Secretary of Finance had no authority to disapprove the resolution of the provincial board abolishing the positions. It was then held by this Court that for the Secretary of Finance to approve or disapprove the act of the provincial board in the matter of the abolition of positions was to exercise "control" which was not contemplated in the power of supervision by the President of the Philippines over local governments — The Secretary of Finance being considered an alter ego of the President. This Court said." . . Unless the acts of local officials or provincial government constitute maladministration, or an abuse or violation of the law, the power of general supervision can not be exercised." This court said further; "The act of the provincial board in suppressing the position of three special counsels not being contrary to law . . . the same may not be disapproved by the Secretary of Finance acting as representative of the President by virtue of the latter’s power of general supervision over local governments . . ." (Italics supplied).

It will be noted that in the decision above-quoted, this Court referred to the act of the provincial board in suppressing the position of three special counsels as "not being contrary to law." It must also be noted, however, that since the Rodriguez v. Montinola case was decided, on May 14, 1954, the situation has changed. On June 12, 1954, R.A. No. 1063, amending Section 2119 of the Revised Administrative Code, took effect. This law provides, among others, that "Abolition of positions shall not take effect except upon approval by the Secretary of Finance." Again, on June 19, 1959, R.A. No. 2260 known as the Civil Service Law took effect, and pursuant to Section 24(g) of said law Rule VIII of the Civil Service Rules was promulgated. Section 5 of said Rule VIII provides that separation of permanent employees on account of reduction of force shall be submitted to the head of the Department for approval, and employees affected be given 30 days written notice in advance of the effective date of reduction. Finally, on June 18, 1964, R.A. 4007 took effect, declaring as permanently appointed to their positions those special counsels who had served in office continuously and efficiently for at least four years and may not be removed from office except for cause as provided in the civil service law, rules or regulations.

We have adverted to, that the Secretary of Finance had approved the 1964-1965 budget of the province of Pangasinan subject to a condition as far as the abolition of positions is concerned, and the condition was not fulfilled; that the abolition of the positions of the petitioners was not in accordance with the civil service law and rules; and that the abolition of the petitioner’s positions was contrary to the spirit and expressed provisions of R.A. No. 4007. Thus, the ruling in the case of Rodriguez v. Montinola, 4 supra, that the provincial board of Pangasinan may abolish the positions of special counsels would not hold now because when that case was decide the act of the provincial board in suppressing the positions of three special counsels was held by this Court as "not being contrary to law." Republic Acts Nos. 1063, 2260 and 4007 were not yet in force when that ruling was made. On the other hand, the ruling of this Court in the case of Castillo v. Pajo 5, supra, which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . There is no statute expressly empowering the board to abolish the offices or positions it has created; however, it is a well- established principle in the law of public administration that the power to establish an office includes the authority to abolish it — unless there are constitutional and statutory rules expressly or impliedly providing otherwise. . ." (Italics supplied)

is squarely applicable in the case now before Us.

We, therefore, declare, and so hold, that the abolition of the positions of the petitioners as special counsels in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, pursuant to resolution no. 598 which was approved by the respondents on June 15, 1964 but made to take effect on July 1, 1964, is illegal. We hold that the respondents have unlawfully excluded the petitioners from the enjoyment of a right or office to which they are entitled. We finally hold that in failing to include item or items in the 1964-1965 annual budget for the province of Pangasinan, and/or in refusing to approve a supplemental budget for the fiscal year 1964-1965 including item or items, to cover appropriations for the salaries of the petitioners, the respondents have unlawfully failed or neglected the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from office.

In view of the foregoing, the writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners should be, as it is hereby, granted. The respondents, as members of the provincial board of Pangasinan, are commanded to appropriate, without unnecessary delay, the amounts necessary for the salaries of the petitioners, as stated in this decision, for the fiscal year 1964-1965 and for the fiscal year thereafter, in consonance with the provisions of R.A. 4007, together with such amounts as may be necessary to pay the contribution of the province of Pangasinan to the GSIS in connection with the insurance and retirement privileges of the petitioners. No costs.

It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Castillo v. Pajo, G.R. No. L-11262, April 28, 1958; 54 O.G. page 6738.

2. Briones, Et Al., v. Osmena, Et Al., G.R. No. L-12536, Sept. 25, 1958; Urgello, Et. Al. v. Osmena, Et Al., G.R. No. L-14908, October 31, 1963.

3. This ruling is reaffirmed in the case of Guerrero, Et Al., v. Carbonnel, Et Al., G.R. No. L-7180, March 15, 1955.

4. Decided, May 14, 1954.

5. Decided, April 28, 1958.




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






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.