Title
Albuera vs. Torres
Case
G.R. No. L-9634
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1957
Employees challenged their termination by Leyte officials; court ruled amended answer raised factual issues, remanding case for trial on merits under Civil Service Law and Republic Act No. 528.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9634)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners/Appellees: Aparicio Albuera, et al. (foremen, carpenters, "camineros," truck drivers, and a watchman employed in the maintenance of provincial roads and bridges in Leyte).
    • Respondents/Appellants: Bernardo Torres (Provincial Governor of Leyte), Francisco Astilla, and Manuel Nierras (Members of the Provincial Board of Leyte).
  2. Nature of the Case:

    • The petitioners filed a complaint to restrain the respondents from terminating their employment and to seek indemnity for moral damages.
  3. Procedural History:

    • The Court of First Instance of Leyte issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the removal of the petitioners pending the resolution of the case.
    • The lower court later rendered a decision making the injunction permanent and ordering the respondents to refrain from removing the petitioners from their positions.
    • The respondents appealed the decision, raising several errors committed by the trial court.
  4. Key Events:

    • The Provincial Fiscal initially filed a motion to dismiss, but the court denied it.
    • The court declared defendants Francisco Astilla and Manuel Nierras in default.
    • A private practitioner, Braulio G. Alfaro, attempted to represent the respondents, but the court ruled that he lacked authority to do so.
    • The Provincial Fiscal later filed an amended answer, which the court admitted.
    • The petitioners moved for a judgment on the pleadings, which the lower court granted.
  5. Legal Issues Raised by Respondents:

    • Errors in admitting the amended answer without a motion for leave.
    • Refusal to allow the withdrawal of the amended answer.
    • Granting of judgment on the pleadings.
    • Misinterpretation of the term "temporary employees" versus "temporary appointees."
    • Failure to apply Republic Act No. 528.
    • Failure to hold a trial on the merits.

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the amended answer without a motion for leave.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the amended answer.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the term "temporary employees" and failing to apply Republic Act No. 528.
  5. Whether the trial court erred in not holding a trial on the merits.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.