Gutierrez v. Florindo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Silvestre D. Florindo was the permanent market administrator and deputy in the office of the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas. Resolution No. 545 created a finance division under a "budget officer and fiscal analyst" with a higher compensation, to which Florindo was appointed. This position was later renamed "budget and fiscal officer" and Florindo received an appointment with a compensation of P6,000 per annum, effective March 1, 1960. However, Florindo only received P275 a month, the salary of his former position, from March 1, 1960, to April 30, 1962. Florindo filed a claim for salary differential, which was denied by the provincial treasurer due to lack of funds and appropriation. His appeal to the Office of the President yielded no result. Procedural History: Florindo filed an action for mandamus to compel the provincial treasurer to certify and make available funds for his salary differential and to recover damages. Subsequently, Resolution No. 872 abolished the position of "budget and fiscal officer" and reassigned Florindo to his former post. Florindo amended his petition to include the provincial governor, provincial board, and provincial government as respondents. The trial court dismissed for mandamus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but nullified Resolution No. 872. Florindo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the nullification of Resolution No. 872 and reversed the dismissal of the mandamus petition, ordering the payment of Florindo's salary differential. The Court of Appeals also initially awarded damages and attorney's fees against the provincial treasurer in his private capacity, but later modified its decision to eliminate these awards upon a second motion for reconsideration filed by the treasurer in his private capacity. The Petition: Petitioners, including the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, sought review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. Respondent Florindo moved for the dismissal of the Petition, arguing it was filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the creation of the position of budget and fiscal officer was ultra vires and illegal. Whether the provincial board could abolish the position of budget and fiscal officer. Whether there were available funds for Florindo's salary as budget and fiscal officer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on certiorari for having been filed out of time. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the nullification of Resolution No. 872 and ordering the payment of Florindo's salary differential.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that the petition for review on certiorari was filed out of time. The reglementary period to appeal began to run from notice of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration on March 24, 1966. The fifteen-day period to file the petition with the Supreme Court expired on April 8, 1966. The second motion for reconsideration, filed by the provincial treasurer in his private capacity, did not suspend the reglementary period for the petitioners in their official capacity, as it pertained to separate and independent issues (damages and attorney's fees) and was not filed by all the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the rules on the manner and period of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. On the legality of the position's creation: The Court found no factual basis for the argument that the creation of the position of budget and fiscal officer was ultra vires or illegal due to conflicting functions with the provincial treasurer. The duties outlined for the budget and fiscal officer were found not to be inconsistent with those of the provincial treasurer as defined in the Revised Administrative Code. Furthermore, this issue was not raised in the trial court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. On the abolition of the office: The Court ruled that the abolition of the position of budget and fiscal officer through Resolution No. 872 was a mere subterfuge to remove Florindo without due process. As a permanent employee with civil service eligibility, Florindo could not be removed except for cause and after due notice and hearing, which he did not receive. The stated reasons for abolition, such as alleged hidden funds and failure to perform duties, were unsubstantiated and the resolution itself indicated a discriminatory intent. The Court reiterated the principle that abolition of office made to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure is null and void. On the availability of funds: The Court noted that the Court of Appeals found that funds were available for Florindo's salary. As this involved a question of fact, the Supreme Court, in a petition for review on certiorari, is not subject to review such findings, especially when supported by substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration filed by a party in his private capacity does not suspend the reglementary period for his co-parties, in their official capacity, to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, especially when the issues raised in the second motion are separate and independent from the official liabilities of the other parties.