Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > March 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19349 March 31, 1964 - FELICISIMO B. SERRANO, ET AL. v. NAT’L. SCIENCE DEV’T. BOARD, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19349. March 31, 1964.]

FELICISIMO B. SERRANO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Zosimo Rivas and Tomas Tirona, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Solicitor General for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS; NATIONAL SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD; POWER TO TERMINATE PROJECT ALREADY INITIATED. — The National Science Development Board has the power to revive, continue, or terminate any of the projects already initiated by the defunct National Science Board.

2. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NO RIGHT TO SALARIES AND WAGES AFTER PROPER TERMINATION OF SERVICES. — The National Science Development Board having the power to terminate projects initiated by the previous Board, the rendering of service by officers and employees employed under said terminated project in defiance of said New Board will not entitle them to salaries and wages for said services, especially where many of them were mere emergency or temporary employees and laborers.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


In order to promote scientific, engineering and technological research, invention and development, the National Science Board was created under Republic Act 1606. This Board was charged with undertaking studies or investigations to acquire or discover new knowledge, principle, process or information relating to science, engineering or technology. The Board could originate researches and undertake special research projects. To carry out its objectives, the Board created the Rice Research and Development Project No. 2.10 charged with the function of undertaking researches in order to improve the rice industry. Felicisimo Serrano of the Bureau of Plant Industry was appointed director of said Project 2.10 and to work under him were likewise appointed some emergency or temporary employees or laborers to serve as such only up to December 31, 1959.

With the enactment on June 13, 1958 of Republic Act 2067, otherwise known as the Science Act of 1958, the National Science Board was abolished and in its place the National Science Development Board was created charged with practically the same functions as the former. Under Section 30 of Republic Act 2067, the projects already initiated by the National Science Board were placed under the National Science Development Board, among them the Rice Research and Development Project No. 2.10.

By resolution adopted on August 13, 1959, the National Science Development Board resolved to discontinue the Rice Research and Development Project 2.10 after December 31, 1959 on the ground that said project had already passed the research stage and was ready to pursue activities on commercial basis which is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture Seed Board. Director Serrano was notified of this resolution on August 30, 1959. Serrano asked for reconsideration of the Board’s decision, but this decision was reiterated in a letter sent to Serrano on November 18, 1959. Despite, however, of the notice given to Serrano to stop working after December 31, 1959, the latter refused to recognize the decision of the National Science Development Board and instead he and his men continued to work in the project even thereafter, claiming that the Board had no power to terminate the project because it had not yet accomplished its objective of improving the rice industry on a permanent basis. Since the Board refused to recognize the work done by Serrano and his men after December 31, 1959, they commenced the present action before the Municipal Court of Manila to recover their salaries and wages for work performed after said date, and damages.

The municipal court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and when the case was taken on appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, it met the same fate. This is an appeal from the decision of dismissal of the court a quo.

The National Science Development Board, as already stated, was created by the Science Act of 1958 as the highest scientific agency in the country. It is vested with broad powers and functions which are discretionary in nature, among them to formulate and coordinate the scientific policies and programs of the government. It is likewise empowered to review and analyze existing projects or those that were initiated by its predecessor, the National Science Board. Due to financial limitations, it was given the power to establish a system of priorities for scientific and technological projects.

In discharging its functions having in view the overall objective of the law of its creation, the National Science Development Board, after reviewing and analyzing the research projects it has inherited, might find that some of them are no longer necessary because their objective has already been accomplished, or because they have failed to realize the purpose for which they were established for some cogent reasons, and as a necessary consequence it might take the step that might be appropriate on the matter. In this task, the Board should possess the necessary power and discretion to revive, continue, or terminate any of the projects already initiated, as otherwise it may fail in its mission. Under this view it cannot then be contended, as appellants now contend, that the Board has no other alternative, nor discretion, to act on those projects than to continue them indefinitely simply because Section 30 of the Science Act of 1958 provides that "projects already initiated under the National Science Board shall be continued under the National Science Development Board." This is the most sensible view, for to uphold the contrary would lead to absurd results. That provision only evinces an intent to continue the projects already initiated by the previous Board instead of starting new ones to save money and effort without negating the power to terminate those that may be found to be unnecessary. This is the situation obtaining here. The new Board found Project No. 2.10 to have reached the commercial stage, the only thing remaining being its implementation by the Department of Agriculture Seed Board.

Assuming arguendo that the project in question needs to be continued as contended it does not follow that appellants cannot be changed or replaced in the discretion of the Board for some were merely designated to act therein while others were mere emergency or temporary employees or laborers. They cannot therefore claim a definite tenure behind which they can shield to continue in office. Their position is precarious and can be terminated at will even without cause. 1

Much stress is laid on the note sent by former President Garcia to the then Chairman of the National Science Development Board stating that the project of Mr. Serrano should be continued and the payment of his personnel should be expedited, which appellants consider as a directive which the Board could not ignore. But the note can at most have a persuasive effect and not as a directive that may nullify the Board’s resolution of August 13, 1959 to terminate the services of appellants. If the Board ignored such directive that is its responsibility to the President. The resolution flows from the authority conferred upon it by the Science Act of 1958.

Appellants’ claim for payment of their salaries and wages on equitable grounds reserve our sympathy, but our hands are tied by the fact that they rendered the service in defiance of the resolution of the National Science Development Board. He who claims equity must come with clean hands.

The decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., took no part.

Makalintal, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Austria v. Amante, 79 Phil., 780; Castro v. Solidum, L-7750, June 30, 1955; Mendez v. Ganzon, Et Al., L-10483, April 12, 1957; Jose V. Rodriguez, Et. Al. v. Ignacio Santos Diaz, Et. Al. L-19553, February 29, 1964.




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






March-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-14077 March 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO RIVERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15470 March 31, 1964 - CONNELL BROS. CO. (PHIL.) v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15598 & 15726 March 31, 1964 - CONRADO HABAÑA, ET AL v. JOSE T. IMBO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16018 March 31, 1964 - JOSE BUMANGLAG v. MELECIO BARAOIDAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16152 March 31, 1964 - JOSE T. ARIVE SR. v. HON. VICENTE S. TUASON

  • G.R. No. L-16243 March 31, 1964 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB Co. v. FRANCISCA VILUAN

  • G.R. No. L-16466 March 31, 1964 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. JOSE ARAÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16991 March 31, 1964 - ROBERTO LAPERAL, JR., ET AL. v. RAMON L. KATIGBAK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17032 March 31, 1964 - INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17074 March 31, 1964 - NAT’L. MARKETING CORP. v. HON. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17085 March 31, 1964 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17234 March 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS G. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-17629 March 31, 1964 - GREGORIO ROBLES v. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK

  • G.R. No. L-17790 March 31, 1964 - LORENZO LIM, ET AL v. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17847 March 31, 1964 - MANUEL A. Q. SORIANO v. FIDEL SAHAGUN

  • G.R. No. L-18046 March 31, 1964 - PAULINO M. CASTRILLO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18289 March 31, 1964 - ANDRES ROMERO v. MAIDEN FORM BRASSIERE CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18354 March 31, 1964 - CHENG BAN YEK CO., INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-18492 March 31, 1964 - MAMERTO TUBERA, ET AL. v. MARGARITA FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-18517 March 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO CANDAVA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18616 March 31, 1964 - VICENTE M. COLEONGCO v. EDUARDO L. CLAPAROLS

  • G.R. No. L-18664 March 31, 1964 - ISMAEL CALMA v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18799 March 31, 1964 - HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18897 March 31, 1964 - MAXIMA NIETO DE COMILANG v. ABDON DELENELA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18899 March 31, 1964 - IN RE: SIXTO MAGDALUYO, ET AL. v. ACTING DIRECTOR, NBI

  • G.R. No. L-19098 March 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PLACIDO SUSANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19115 March 31, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-19254 March 31, 1964 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-19349 March 31, 1964 - FELICISIMO B. SERRANO, ET AL. v. NAT’L. SCIENCE DEV’T. BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19358-59 March 31, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA v. VENANCIO BACAY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19389 March 31, 1964 - VALENTIN EDUQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19557 March 31, 1964 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PASCUAL ORTAÑEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19568 March 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. CHUPECO

  • G.R. No. L-19619 March 31, 1964 - PRISCO ILAGAN v. MACARIO ADAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19629 and L-19672-92 March 31, 1964 - GUILLERMO PONCE v. MARCELO GUEVARRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19654 March 31, 1964 - EMILIANO LUSTRE, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19799 March 31, 1964 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PAULINO MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20137 March 31, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO AMIL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21991 March 31, 1964 - LUIS ASISTIO, ET AL. v. HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO

  • G.R. No. L-22342 March 31, 1964 - HADJI AZIZ LUMNA TANGO v. HON. CRISTOBAL ALEJANDRO, ET AL