Agudo v. Villanueva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the rightful holder of a Special Counsel position in the City Attorney's office of Butuan City for the 1958-59 budget year. Jose Agudo, Jr. was appointed to this position by the City Mayor on January 12, 1960, and his appointment was attested by the City Treasurer. He began rendering services and was paid his salary. However, the Secretary of Justice subsequently appointed Ricardo S. Castillo to the same position on January 20, 1960. Procedural History: Upon being confronted with two appointees for the same position, the City Treasurer refused to honor Castillo's salary voucher and stopped Agudo's salary payments after February 15, 1960. Agudo then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, seeking to compel the City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Auditor to certify, audit, and pay his salary. Ricardo S. Castillo intervened in the case, asserting his entitlement to the salary. The trial court ruled in favor of Agudo and dismissed Castillo's claim. The respondents appealed this judgment, while Castillo's appeal was dismissed for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period. The Petition: The petitioner, Jose Agudo, Jr., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay his salary for the Special Counsel position. The respondents and intervenor challenged Agudo's right to the salary. The appeal to the Supreme Court primarily addresses whether the respondents were legally obligated to pay Agudo's salary, given the conflicting appointments and subsequent developments, including resolutions by the municipal board that appeared to waive Castillo's claim and create a new position.
Issue(s)
Whether the descriptive words "(Investigator-Researcher)" in petitioner's appointment invalidate it for a position budgeted as "Special Counsel." Whether the appointment of petitioner by the City Mayor, attested by the City Treasurer, is valid and effective under Republic Act No. 2264. Whether the respondents have a ministerial duty to pay the salary of the petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, ordering the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner. The Court found the petitioner's appointment valid and effective, and the payment of his salary a ministerial duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of descriptive words in the appointment: The Court held that the descriptive words "(Investigator-Researcher)" in the petitioner's appointment were merely descriptive of the duties to be discharged and did not refer to a different, non-existent position. The Court emphasized that the position was clearly identified as the one vacated by Attorney Francisco P. Parcon, who was the former incumbent Special Counsel. The fact that the position was included in the budget without a detailed description of powers and duties further supported the interpretation that the descriptive words were for clarity and convenience, not to create a new or distinct role. On the validity and effectiveness of the appointment: The Court affirmed the validity and effectiveness of the petitioner's appointment made by the City Mayor. This was based on Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2264 (Local Autonomy Act), which states that an appointment made by the City Mayor becomes effective upon attestation by the City Treasurer, acting as the representative of the Commissioner of Civil Service. The Court noted that the respondents themselves had recognized the validity of the appointment by paying Agudo's salary for a period, demonstrating their acknowledgment of his status as a legally appointed official. On the ministerial duty to pay salary: The Court concluded that the respondents had a ministerial duty to certify, pass in audit, and pay the salary of the petitioner. This duty arises from the fact that the petitioner held a valid appointment to a position created by the municipal board and payable from local funds, and his appointment had been properly attested. The Court reasoned that once an appointment is validly made and attested, the disbursing officers are legally bound to perform the ministerial act of paying the salary, as mandated by law. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in issuing the writ of mandamus to compel such payment.
Main Doctrine
The appointment of Jose C. Agudo, Jr. as Special Counsel by the City Mayor of Butuan City was valid and effective upon attestation by the City Treasurer, as representative of the Civil Service Commissioner, pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2264. Consequently, the respondents, as disbursing officers, had a ministerial duty to certify, pass in audit, and pay Agudo's salary.