Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5856)
Facts:
Marcelino A. Busacay v. Antonio F. Buenaventura, G.R. No. L-5856. September 23, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Marcelino A. Busacay was a pre-war toll collector at the Bued toll bridge in Sison, Pangasinan, whose appointment the Commissioner of Civil Service had classified as permanent. After liberation he was reappointed October 18, 1945 at P720 per annum; he resigned March 21, 1946 but was reappointed April 16, 1946 and continuously served until November 1947. From July 17 to September 10, 1946 the bridge had been temporarily closed for minor repairs and the toll collectors were not paid during that brief period because no services were rendered.
In November 1947 a flood totally destroyed the Bued bridge. The bridge was a portion of a national road and a national toll bridge under Act No. 3932, the salaries of its toll collectors to be paid from toll collections. From 1948 to 1950 no appropriation was set aside for such salaries because the bridge was being rehabilitated. When the bridge was reconstructed and reopened about the end of November 1950, Busacay notified the Provincial Treasurer of Pangasinan of his readiness to resume duties but was refused reinstatement; instead, Alfredo Murao, a civil service eligible, was appointed in February 1951 and has since occupied the post.
Busacay filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan seeking mandamus and quo warranto to compel reinstatement and also demanding back pay and/or damages. The case was submitted on the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, the principal ground being that the toll-collector position was temporary and its functions transitory and precarious, implying the position had been abolished by the bridge's destruction. The Solicitor General argued the destruction abolished the office.
Busacay appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Tuason, reversed the trial court insofar as it denied reinstatement and affirmed as to the claim for back pay and damages. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed; by a Resolution dated Dec...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the total destruction of the Bued toll bridge in 1947 abolish the office of toll collector so as to terminate the incumbent's rights?
- Is the appellant entitled to reinstatement to the toll-collector position upon reconstruction and reopening of the bridge?
- Is the appellant entitled to back pay or damages, and can the Provincial Treasurer be personally held liable or required to pay from public funds without the p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)