Facts:

The case involves Alfredo Balquidra (the petitioner) against the Court of First Instance of Capiz, the incumbent Provincial Governor Cornelio Villareal, Jr., and the Province of Capiz (the respondents). The dispute originated from a petition for mandamus filed by Balquidra on August 28, 1963, in the Court of First Instance, seeking reinstatement to his position as watchman in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Capiz, with back salaries and damages. Balquidra was appointed as a watchman on June 17, 1961, earning an annual salary of ₱1,440. His position was confirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Service but he was not classified as civil service eligible. His services were terminated on August 31, 1962, without prior notice or formal charges by the respondents, who claimed the dismissal was "for the convenience of the government." After numerous procedural motions and hearings, the lower court initially declared Balquidra's dismissal illegal on February 1, 197

...

Facts:

Appointment and Employment of Petitioner

• On June 17, 1961, Alfredo Balquidra was appointed as a watchman in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Capiz, with a compensation of P1,440.00 per annum, replacing the deceased Jose Adrias.
• His appointment, validated by the then-Governor Atila Balgos, was supported by copies furnished to the Civil Service Commissioner, the Provincial Treasurer, and the Provincial Auditor of Capiz.
• The appointment papers bore the notation “Noted: under paragraph 1, Sec. 5 of Rep. Act 2260, subject to the usual physical and medical examination,” indicating his status in an unclassified service.
• Within a week after the appointment, on June 24, 1961, petitioner took his oath of office before the then-Governor Atila Balgos.

Termination of Employment

• On August 31, 1962, petitioner’s services as watchman were terminated without prior notice or any formal charge, whether administrative, criminal, or civil.
• The termination letter from the Provincial Treasurer and a concomitant letter from the Provincial Governor stated that the dismissal was "for the convenience of the government."
• Subsequent to his dismissal, petitioner did not receive any terminal leave pay nor did he obtain clearance regarding his accountability.

Initiation of the Legal Action and Trial Proceedings

• Petitioner instituted a petition for mandamus with damages, seeking his reinstatement and the payment of back salaries and damages against respondent officials.
• Respondents submitted a common answer with a motion to dismiss, while the parties later submitted a stipulation of facts that detailed his appointment, oath, tenure, and dismissal.
• At trial, petitioner adduced evidence to support his claims while respondents, having waived their right to present evidence, were represented solely through their counsels.
• The trial record included testimony about the nature of the watchman position, GSIS membership, and the non-civil service eligibility of the petitioner.

Lower Court Rulings and Subsequent Motions

• On February 1, 1974, the Court of First Instance of Capiz rendered a decision affirming that petitioner held a permanent appointment, that his dismissal was illegal, and that he was entitled to reinstatement along with payment of back salaries and an award for attorney’s fees.
• On February 15, 1974, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was later supplemented on March 4, 1974, raising several grounds against the reinstatement order and the award of back salaries and attorney’s fees.
• The court, by order dated June 20, 1974, denied the initial Motion for Reconsideration, and respondents subsequently filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration on July 2, 1974 claiming that the decision ordering the Province of Capiz to pay back salaries was contrary to law.
• Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution of the original decision on the ground that it had become final; however, on July 17, 1974, the court issued a Resolution Amending Decision that reinstated petitioner but eliminated the award of back salaries and damages.

Assignment of Errors Raised on Appeal

• Error in the Resolution Amending Decision for ordering reinstatement without awarding back salaries, despite clear evidence that the dismissal was arbitrary and without due process.
• Error in holding that the Province of Capiz could not be held liable for back salaries, damages, and attorney’s fees since it was not expressly impleaded, notwithstanding the petitioner’s affirmative allegation in his pleadings.
• Error in the timing and jurisdiction relating to the amendment of the decision, where the second motion for reconsideration was deemed pro-forma and did not suspend the running of the appeal period.
• Error for not awarding moral and exemplary damages, even though petitioner claimed such damages arising from the illegal dismissal.

Evidentiary and Legal Context

• The record confirmed petitioner’s status in the unclassified service, emphasizing that even non-civil service eligible appointees are protected by the Civil Service Law.
• Testimonies and documentary evidence established that his dismissal was executed without just cause, formal charge, or prior notice, thereby invoking the security of tenure principles.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner, an employee in the unclassified service, is entitled to security of tenure and thus protected from arbitrary dismissal without notice or formal charge.

• Whether the absence of civil service eligibility negates the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law.

Whether the Province of Capiz should be held jointly and solidarily liable for the payment of petitioner’s back salaries, damages, and attorney’s fees, given that the dismissal was carried out "for the convenience of the government."

• The issue of proper impleading of the Province of Capiz and whether its non-inclusion affects due process rights and liability.

Whether the lower court committed error in amending its original decision after the appeal period had lapsed, specifically in the issuance of the Resolution Amending Decision that effectively rescinded the award for back salaries.

• The effect of pro-forma motions on the running of the appeal period and the finality of the original decision.

• Whether petitioner is entitled to additional relief in the form of moral and exemplary damages in light of the arbitrary dismissal and any malice or bad faith shown by the respondents.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)