Llanto v. Dimaporo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Resolution No. 7, Series of 1960, adopted by the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte on January 6, 1960, reverted the salary appropriation for the position of Assistant Provincial Assessor to the general fund, effectively abolishing the position held by petitioner Eufronio J. Llanto. Petitioner's appeals to various government officials were unsuccessful. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus seeking the annulment of the resolution, restoration of salary appropriation, reinstatement, and payment of back salaries and damages. Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action, which the trial court granted. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his petition, arguing that the dismissal order was void for lack of hearing and that the abolition of his position was illegal and done for political reasons.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal order is void for lack of hearing on the motion to dismiss. Whether the petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action. Whether the Provincial Board had the authority to abolish the petitioner's position without the approval of the Secretary of Finance. Whether mandamus would lie to compel the restoration of the petitioner's position.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court dismissing the petition. The Court held that the dismissal order was not void, the petition was correctly dismissed for lack of cause of action, the Provincial Board had the authority to abolish the position, and mandamus would not lie.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the dismissal order is void for lack of hearing on the motion to dismiss: The Court ruled that the dismissal order was not void. While a hearing is generally required for a motion to dismiss, it may be dispensed with when the issue is purely one of law and has been fully discussed in the pleadings, as was the case here. Furthermore, any defect in the lack of prior notice of hearing was cured by the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, wherein he was given an opportunity to be heard. The presumption of regularity in court proceedings was not overcome by the petitioner. On the issue of whether the petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action: The Court held that the petition was correctly dismissed. The abolition of a position created by a provincial board is generally within its power, provided it is exercised in good faith and not for political persecution. The petitioner's averment that the abolition was malicious and illegal was a mere conclusion of law unsupported by factual premises. The presumption of good faith and regular performance of official duty, coupled with the stated reason of deficit and dispensability of the position, supported the board's action. On the issue of whether the Provincial Board had the authority to abolish the petitioner's position without the approval of the Secretary of Finance: The Court ruled that the Provincial Board had the authority. Republic Act No. 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) grants provincial boards the power to appropriate money and, by implication, to withdraw unexpended appropriations. The law does not require the approval of the Secretary of Finance for the abolition of positions. The principle of liberal construction of powers granted to local governments under the Local Autonomy Act further supports this interpretation. On the issue of whether mandamus would lie to compel the restoration of the petitioner's position: The Court held that mandamus would not lie. Mandamus compels the performance of a ministerial duty, not the exercise of judgment or discretion. The abolition of a position involves the exercise of discretion by the provincial board, and thus, it cannot be controlled by mandamus.
Main Doctrine
The power to create a position in a provincial government generally implies the power to abolish it, provided such abolition is exercised in good faith and not for political persecution or vengeance, and is not in violation of Civil Service Law. A motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action, where the issue is purely one of law, may be resolved without oral arguments if the legal issue has been fully discussed in the pleadings. Defects in notice of hearing are cured by a subsequent motion for reconsideration where the parties are given an opportunity to be heard.