Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20818. May 25, 1966.]

CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, v. RODOLFO GANZON, as Mayor of the City of Iloilo, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ILOILO CITY, CITY TREASURER and THE CITY OF ILOILO, Respondents-Appellants.

City Fiscal S. I. Daguay and Assistant City Fiscal R. S. Jardenil for respondents and appellants.

Amado D. Soroñgon for Petitioners-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; LIABILITY FOR BACK WAGES OF MARKET SWEEPERS; CASE AT BAR. — The question raised in this case is whether or not the lower court erred in holding the city of Iloilo jointly liable with the other respondent officers of the City for the back salaries of petitioners, whose items as market sweepers, were illegally abolished by respondent Municipal Board. Respondents maintain the negative upon the ground that municipal corporations enjoy the same immunity as the state in the administration of strictly governmental functions, unless expressly made liable by statute, and that pursuant to Section 4 of the Charter of Iloilo City (Commonwealth Act No. 158, as amended), the City shall not be liable for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the municipal board, or any city officer, to enforce the provisions of the Charter or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence on their part while carrying out or enforcing said provisions. Respondents’ pretense is untenable for the following reasons: The Charter of Iloilo City (Section 3), expressly provides that the City of Iloilo may "sue and be sued" ; the operation of a market, in the cleaning of which petitioners are engaged, is not strictly a governmental function; and this Court has already held that municipal corporations may be held liable for the back pay or wages of employees or laborers illegally separated from the service, including those involving primarily governmental functions.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal, by respondents, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing considerations, writ of mandamus is hereby granted against the respondents who are hereby ordered to restore the items corresponding to the salaries of the petitioners in the budget; to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions, and to pay their salaries during their separation from service, with costs against the respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners herein are laborers or employees in the unclassified service, assigned as market-sweepers of the City of Iloilo, in which capacity they have been working for some time, ranging from nine (9) to twenty-five (25) years. On July 12, 1955, petitioners herein, together with 13 other laborers and/or employees of Iloilo City as market sweepers, slaughterhouse laborers and market cleaning capataces, commenced civil case No. 3764 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against the Mayor, the Treasurer and the Veterinarian of Iloilo City, to compel these officers to reinstate said petitioners to their aforementioned positions, from which they had been allegedly separated or dismissed illegally. In their answer, the respondents in said case alleged that respondent Mayor had the right to remove or separate the petitioners therein from the service because they were not civil service eligibles and were paid on a daily basis. In due course, judgment was, on March 15, 1956, rendered in said case, which is already final and executory, against the respondents and in favor of the petitioners therein — excluding three of them, as to whom the case was dismissed at their own request, but including the eleven (11) petitioners herein — who were declared permanent employees and/or laborers of Iloilo City and ordered reinstated to their respective positions as such. However, their items were not included in the budget approved by the Municipal Board of Iloilo City for the fiscal year 1960-1961. Petitioners asked the Secretary of Finance to declare said abolition of their positions inoperative, but the request was denied by said officer upon the ground that the issue could be determined only by courts of justice. Hence, petitioners instituted the present action for mandamus against the city mayor, the municipal board, the city treasurer and the City of Iloilo, to compel said respondents to restore the aforementioned items in the city budget, to reinstate petitioners to their former positions, and to pay their salaries during their separation from the service, with costs.

In their answer, respondents alleged that the abolition of said items had been decreed for reasons of economy, to balance the budget and to meet the free elementary education program of Iloilo City, apart from the alleged inefficiency of the petitioners. Respondents, likewise, averred in their answer that the city was contemplating to place the cleaning of the markets under contract with private individuals.

After appropriate proceedings, the lower court rendered the decision appealed from, finding against the foregoing allegations of fact of respondents herein; that said allegations "are devices conceived in order to smoke screen the real cause of the elimination of the items of the petitioners in the budget for the year 1960-1961, which is political exigency;" that said elimination of petitioners’ items was "politically inspired, so that the positions they vacated could be filed up by the followers of the respondents;" and that, in fact, after the abolition of said items, "new men or laborers were placed by the respondents to take the places vacated by the petitioners;" and, consequently, holding said abolition of items illegal and void.

The appeal taken by respondents herein raises only one question, namely, whether or not the lower court erred in holding the City of Iloilo jointly liable with the other respondents for the back salaries of petitioners herein. Respondents-appellants maintain the negative upon the ground that municipal corporations enjoy the same immunity as the state in the administration of strictly governmental functions, unless expressly made liable by statute, and that pursuant to Section 4 of the Charter of Iloilo City (Commonwealth Act No. 158, as amended):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The City shall not be liable for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Municipal Board, or any City Officer, to enforce the provisions of this Charter, or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence on their part while carrying out or enforcing said provisions"

Respondents’ pretense is untenable. To begin with, the Charter of Iloilo City (Sec. 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 158), expressly provides that the City of Iloilo may "sue and be sued." Secondly, the operation of a market, in the cleaning of which petitioners herein are engaged, is not strictly a governmental function. 1 Thirdly, we have already decided in a number of cases that municipal corporations may be held liable for back pay or wages of employees or laborers illegally separated from the service, including those involving primarily governmental functions, such as those of policemen. 2

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against respondents-appellant. It is so ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Esteban v. City of Cabanatuan, 108 Phil., 374 (May 30, 1960). See, also, 43 C.J. 1174; 63 C.J.S. 324; 33 Am. Jur. 305; City of Nashville v. Fox, 6 Tenn. App. 653; Savannah v. Collens, 38 Ga. 334, 95 Am. D.

2. Mission v. Del Rosario, 94 Phil., 483; 50 Off. Gaz., 1571 Abella v. Rodriguez, 95 Phil., 289; 50 Off. Gaz., 3039; Uy v. Rodriguez, 95 Phil., 493; 50 Off. Gaz., 3574; People v. Bautista, 96 Phil., 43; 50 Off. Gaz., 5286; Faunillan v. Del Rosario, 99 Phil., 758; 50 Off. Gaz., 5815; Cacho v. Osmeña, 103 Phil., 837; Briones v. Osmeña, 104 Phil., 588; Noromor v. The Municipality of Oras, L-18637, February 28, 1963; Cuñado v. Gamus, and Valecera v. Gamus, L-16782- 83, May 30, 1963; Urgelio v. Osmeña, L-14908, February 28, 1964; Tañala v. Legaspi, L-22537, March 31, 1965; and Gabutas v. Castellanes, L-17323, June 23, 1965.




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






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.