Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-38426. May 11, 1988.]

PEDRO DE VILLA, Petitioner, v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR., Respondent.

Blanco and De Villa for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; LEAVE PRIVILEGES; GRANTED ONLY TO APPOINTED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES NOT TO ELECTIVE OFFICIALS. — The only issue in this petition is whether or not the petitioner, a municipal mayor, is entitled to leave privileges and the communication of accumulated leave credits upon his retirement. This question was squarely passed upon by this Court in the case of Macatangay v. Chairman of the Commission on Audit (117 SCRA 231, 234-237). In the said case, we ruled that under Chapter 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, only appointive government officers and employers are entitled to leave privileges. There is, therefore, no question that the petitioner is not entitled to accumulated leave credits. It follows that there is also nothing to commute since he has failed to cite applicable law which entitle him to the same.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


The petitioner applied for the commutation of his alleged accumulated leave credits pursuant to the provisions of Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1081, and Section 2187 (paragraph 2) of the Revised Administrative Code which respectively provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 286. — When vacation and sick leave may be taken: Vacation and sick leave shall be cumulative and any part thereof which may not be taken within the calendar year in which earned may be carried over to the succeeding years, but whenever any officer, employee, or laborer of the Government of the Philippines shall voluntarily resign or be separated from the service thru no fault of his own, he shall be entitled to the commutation of all accumulated vacation and/or sick leave to his credit: Provided, that the total vacation and sick leave that can accumulate to the credit of any official or employee shall in no case exceed ten months." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"Section 2187. — Compensation of vice-mayor and councilors. — Full pay for sick mayor —

x       x       x


"The municipal mayor shall receive full salary when absent from the municipality upon occasion of any meeting of mayors convoked by the provincial board or when absent therefrom upon any other business the performance of which is required of him by express provision of law or competent administrative authority or, if the general funds of the municipality permit, when he is absent from his office because of his illness contracted through no fault of his own, provided the absence in the latter case does not exceed thirty days during the year, which fact must be attested by an affidavit of the interested party and by a medical certificate or, if there be no physician in the locality, by a health officer’s certificate; and if during such authorized or justified absence the vice-mayor or a councilor temporarily discharges the local duties of the mayor the officer rendering such service may receive compensation in an amount to be fixed by the council, with the approval of the provincial governor, which amount shall not be in excess of the salary of mayor for the same period: Provided, That per diem for attendance of the sessions of the council shall not be paid to an officer rendering such service."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


The respondent Commission on Audit (COA) denied the petitioner’s application, hence, the filing of the present petition. The petitioner served as municipal mayor of Alaminos, Laguna for the following periods:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"January 1, 1956 — December 31, 1959

January 1, 1960 — December 31, 1963

January 1, 1968 — December 31, 1971 (Rollo, p. 3)

The petitioner claims that during the above terms, he earned accumulated vacation and/or sick leaves to his credit corresponding to 300 working days. Thus, on October 18, 1973, he applied for the commutation of the same with the Office of the Governor, citing the afore-quoted sections and the case of Benito Manuel C. v. General Auditing Office (G.R. No. L-28952, December 29, 1971) as bases for his claim.

The Department of Local Government and Community Development approved the petitioner’s application. However, when the claim was brought to the office of the respondent, the latter denied it, relying on the opinion of the Secretary of Justice which was embodied in Provincial Circular No. 24 to the effect that the case of Manuel v. GAO "may not be cited as binding and applicable precedent in the adjudication of claims of any and all elective officials (e.g., members of local legislative bodies) for the commutation of vacation and sick leave." Thus, the petitioner brought his case before this Court.

The only issue in this petition is whether or not the petitioner, a municipal mayor, is entitled to leave privileges and the communication of accumulated leave credits upon his retirement.

This question was squarely passed upon by this Court in the case of Macatangay v. Chairman of the Commission on Audit (117 SCRA 231, 234-237). In the said case, we ruled:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Chapter 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, entitled the Leave Law, governs the granting and enjoyment of leave of absence of government officers and employees. Specifically mentioned therein as entitled to leave privileges are the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, (Section 268, Revised Administrative Code), Judges of the Courts of First Instance, (Section 271, Ibid., as amended by R.A. Nos. 1399 and 1802), teachers, (Section 274, Ibid), and in general, officers and employees of the national, provincial, city and municipal governments. (Section 284, Ibid). The Justices, Judges and teachers are appointive government officers and employees. A fortiori, it is safe to say that the other employees referred to in the Leave Law are likewise appointive employees of the national and local governments. Firstly, a perusal of Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code (which actually refers to the leave privileges granted under Sections 284 and 285-A of the same Code) will readily show that its provisions are intended only for appointed officers, employees, teachers, or laborers of the Government. This intent is clearly manifest from a reading of Sections 284 and 285-A of the Revised Administrative Code which, together with Section 286, are found in Chapter 13 of the said Code, under the title ‘Leave Law.’ Secondly, Section 284 explicitly allows leave privileges to employees only ‘after at least six months’ continuous, faithful and satisfactory service,’ a Civil Service requirement to the effect that an appointive employee must serve a probationary period of six months following his original appointment, in order to acquire permanent status. This requirement does not apply to elective officials who serve for a fixed term commencing upon their assumption of office without regard to their status.

"2. What was said in the Memorandum for Respondent (pp. 98-99, Rollo), is likewise relevant: ‘As a general proposition, elective officials’ entitled to salary is not dependent upon actual attendance in office. In fact, they are not even required to keep a record of their daily attendance such as by accomplishing Civil Service Form No. 48 (Daily Time Record) or punching the bundy clock. Thus, a provincial governor is entitled to collect salary even when absent on a personal business, it being well-settled that an elected officer is entitled to emoluments so long as he is permitted to retain the office, the right thereto being independent of services performed. (Op., Insular Auditor, Dec. 23, 1919, cited in Araneta, the Adm. Code, Vol. IV, pp. 2720, 2721). Elective officials, indeed, are deemed in the service of their constituents regardless of time and place. There can be no occasion to consider them absent from work since their presence at such specified time and place is not prerequisite to their collection of salary for services rendered, So, too, they need not seek leave to be absent for there is no absence to speak of.’

"3. Indeed, there is no specific provision of law authorizing leave privileges, nor commutation thereof, for elective officials, in general, and municipal mayors in particular, as in the instant case. Section 2187 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 4968, cited by petitioner to support his contention that a municipal mayor is entitled to leave privileges, are likewise, unavailing. A perusal of Section 2187 of the Revised Administrative Code reveals that what is granted therein is the right of municipal mayors to receive full salary only during their absence due to illness contracted through no fault of his own, for a period of not more than thirty (30) days during the year. No mention is made therein about the mayor having to apply for leave of absence to enjoy his right to receive full salary. Neither does this provision of law authorize accumulation of such leave. Hence, no commutation of leave is possible. Indeed, if it were the intention of Section 2187 to allow accumulation and commutation of unused leave for mayors, it could have easily so provided as in the case of appointive government officers and employees under Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code.

x       x       x


"4. The case of Manuel v. General Auditing office, supra also invoked by petitioner to support his claim for commutation of his alleged terminal leave, may not, for audit purposes, be used as the sole basis of claims for commutation of leave by any elective official. Any claimant thereto must first show undoubtedly under what provision of law he has earned an accumulated leave before he can be entitled to the commutation thereof. In fine, no claim for commutation of leave filed by any elective official shall be allowed in audit in the absence of a showing that the claimant has previously earned and accumulated leave to his credit pursuant to a law granting him leave and privileges."cralaw virtua1aw library

We also reiterated this ruling in the case of Tenorio v. Commissioner, Commission on Audit (122 SCRA 77).chanrobles law library

There is, therefore, no question that the petitioner is not entitled to accumulated leave credits. It follows that there is also nothing to commute since he has failed to cite any applicable law which would entitle him to the same. The remedy for local elective officials who may wish to have vacation and sick leave privileges similar to those enjoyed by appointive officers is to have the existing law amended.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.