Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente, Chief of Clinics at the National Children's Hospital, was demoted to Medical Specialist II following a reorganization. He protested this demotion, first with the Department of Health Reorganization Board and then with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, in a resolution dated August 9, 1988, declared the demotion null and void, ordering Dr. de la Fuente's retention in his position as Chief of Clinics (later retitled Chief of Medical Professional Staff) without loss of seniority and payment of back salaries and benefits. This resolution became final and executory on September 21, 1988, as no appeal was filed. Procedural History: Despite the finality of the CSC resolution, Dr. de la Fuente's demands for implementation from Dr. Isabelita Vital-Gozon, the Medical Center Chief, were ignored. After three months with no action, Dr. de la Fuente filed a petition for mandamus and damages with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 28, 1988, seeking to compel compliance with the CSC resolution and to recover damages. He later filed a supplemental/amended petition, adding a quo warranto claim. The CA initially ordered compliance but denied damages, stating mandamus was not the proper vehicle. Dr. de la Fuente moved for reconsideration, arguing the CA had jurisdiction over damages under BP 129. The CA granted this motion, modifying its earlier decision to allow further proceedings for damages. This led to a series of motions and resolutions, including the CA's denial of Vital-Gozon's attempt to file an answer late and its eventual award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to Dr. de la Fuente on May 7, 1997. This award was based on Vital-Gozon's continued refusal to implement the CSC resolution, causing Dr. de la Fuente significant distress and litigation expenses. The Petition: Petitioner Isabelita Vital-Gozon seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals' Resolution of May 7, 1997, which awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to respondent Dr. Alejandro de la Fuente. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Vital-Gozon argues that there is no factual basis for the damages awarded, asserting she acted in good faith and that any delay in reinstatement was due to directives from the Department of Health's Legal Department. She also claims her right to due process was violated by the CA's refusal to admit her belatedly filed answer. Furthermore, she contends she cannot be held personally liable for damages as she was sued in her official capacity. The petition also questions the CA's reliance on this Court's previous findings in G.R. No. 101428 as conclusive factual findings binding on the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Vital-Gozon was denied due process when her answer to the petition for damages was not admitted. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to respondent de la Fuente.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to respondent de la Fuente is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process: The petitioner was not denied due process. The records show that she was repeatedly required by the Court of Appeals to file an answer to both the original and supplemental petitions, but she failed to do so within the prescribed periods. Her claim that she questioned the jurisdiction of the CA over the damages claim is irrelevant as this challenge was raised only after the CA had already modified its decision to include damages. The CA afforded her opportunities to be heard, including the right to cross-examine the private respondent and the explicit allowance to present her evidence, which she failed to avail of. The denial of her belatedly filed answer was therefore justified. On the issue of the award of damages: The award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees is proper. Article 27 of the Civil Code provides that a public servant who refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may be held liable for damages. The petitioner, as Medical Center Chief, had the duty to implement the final and executory CSC Resolution reinstating Dr. de la Fuente. Her failure to do so, despite repeated demands and her cavalier attitude towards the matter, constituted a wrongful act or omission. Dr. de la Fuente suffered mental anguish, sleepless nights, and anxiety due to this refusal, which were proximately caused by the petitioner's neglect. The CA correctly awarded moral damages based on his testimony and exemplary damages as a deterrent to other public officials. Attorney's fees were also justified as actual damages.
Main Doctrine
A public servant who unjustifiably refuses or neglects to perform an official duty, as mandated by a final and executory decision of the Civil Service Commission, may be held personally liable for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, to the aggrieved party.