Enciso v. Remo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angel Enciso, a civil service eligible and sergeant in the police force of Goa, Camarines Sur since 1939, was granted a leave of absence on February 15, 1952, which was subsequently extended with the approval of Mayor Deogracias Remo. On the same day Enciso began his leave, Sergio Calingan, a non-eligible, was appointed to serve in Enciso's place. Upon Enciso's return after his leave expired, he was informed that his position had been abolished and replaced with that of a corporal, allegedly due to a directive from the Secretary of Finance. Procedural History: Enciso initially filed a complaint with the provincial board, and upon receiving no action, escalated the matter to the Office of the President. An indorsement from Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema ordered Enciso's reinstatement. When Mayor Remo refused to comply, Enciso filed a petition for mandamus. While the case was pending, the acting municipal mayor reinstated Enciso on August 2, 1954. Remo's motion to dismiss was denied as the issue of damages remained. Enciso amended his petition to include claims for moral damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and later, his monthly salary during the period he was out of service. He further amended his petition to implead the Municipality of Goa after Remo's term expired. The lower court ruled in favor of Enciso, ordering Remo to pay back salaries and attorney's fees, but initially failed to hold the municipality liable for damages. An amendment to the judgment made the respondents jointly and solidarily liable for salaries, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The respondents' appeal was initially disapproved for failure to file a record on appeal, but this Court ordered the lower court to give due course to the appeal, holding that the action retained its mandamus character. The Petition: The respondents contend that Enciso's position was abolished, that the lower court improperly amended its decision to include the municipality's solidary liability after the decision had become final, and that they should not be condemned to pay damages or back salaries. The Court addresses these contentions, finding no basis for the abolition of the position, clarifying that the change in designation from sergeant to corporal was a matter of nomenclature conforming to legislation and not an abolition of the post. It also addresses the procedural issue of amending the judgment, noting that Enciso relied on the lower court's ruling regarding the appeal period. Finally, the Court affirms the lower court's judgment regarding back salaries and attorney's fees, finding Remo acted in bad faith, but eliminates the award for moral damages, holding that it is absorbed by the back salaries.
Issue(s)
Whether the position of police sergeant occupied by Angel Enciso was legally abolished. Whether the lower court retained jurisdiction to amend its decision to include the Municipality of Goa's solidary liability. Whether the respondents should be held liable for back salaries and moral damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, ordering the respondents to pay Angel Enciso his back salaries and attorney's fees, but eliminated the award for moral damages. The Court held that the position was not abolished and that the respondents were liable for the illegal exclusion of Enciso from his position.
Ratio Decidendi
On the abolition of the position: The Court found no basis in law or fact for the respondents' claim that Enciso's position was abolished. The municipal council's budget for 1952-1953, relied upon by the respondents, did not indicate the abolition of the position but merely changed its designation from sergeant to corporal, consistent with legislative policy. Furthermore, the Department of Finance clarified that the directive was only to change the designation to conform to new legislation, not to abolish positions or remove incumbents who were civil service eligibles. The reinstatement order itself, referring to a "reinstatement to the position of corporal, instead of sergeant," acknowledged the continuity of the position. Therefore, the contention that there was no position to which Enciso could be restored was untenable. On the lower court's jurisdiction to amend the decision: The Court clarified that the action retained its character as a suit for mandamus, even after Enciso's reinstatement, citing its prior ruling in Remo v. Palacio. The respondents' argument that the lower court lost jurisdiction to amend the decision because the petitioner filed his motion after the 15-day period for appealing decisions in mandamus cases was premised on the lower court's erroneous classification of the case as an ordinary action for damages. Given that the petitioner justifiably relied on the lower court's ruling and computed his appeal period accordingly, and considering the uniform 30-day period for appeals under the present Rules, the amendment was deemed valid in the context of the procedural developments. On the liability for back salaries and moral damages: The Court affirmed the lower court's finding of bad faith on the part of respondent Remo. Remo's assertion that the position was abolished was false, and his obstinate refusal to reinstate Enciso, despite orders from the Office of the President and the clarification from the Department of Finance, demonstrated bad faith. The Court noted that the refusal appeared to be motivated by political differences. The Court reiterated the principle that a public officer acting tortiously outside the scope of their duty is personally liable. Municipal corporations can also be held liable for backpay of employees illegally separated from service. Thus, both respondents were correctly adjudged solidarily liable for back salaries. However, the Court held that the award of back salaries already includes and absorbs moral damages, citing Diaz v. Amante, and therefore eliminated the award for moral damages.
Main Doctrine
A municipal position is not considered abolished if its designation is merely changed to conform to new legislation, especially when the incumbent is a civil service eligible and the change is not supported by evidence of actual abolition. A public officer acting tortiously outside the scope of his duty is personally liable, and municipal corporations may be held liable for backpay of illegally dismissed employees.