G.R. No. L-23670 - Enciso vs. Remo

Angel Enciso was a police officer with service dating back to March 16, 1939, serving in the police force of Goa, Camarines Sur.
On February 15, 1952, he applied for a leave of absence, which was granted by then-Mayor Deogracias Remo.
His leave was later extended with the approval of Mayor Remo.

On February 16, 1952, the day Enciso went on leave, Sergio Calingan—a non-eligible individual—was appointed as “vice Angel Enciso” to serve until a duly qualified successor could be found.
This appointment foreshadowed the issues to come regarding the status and continuity of Enciso’s position.

When Enciso reported back for duty after his leave expired, he was informed that his position had been “abolished” by the Goa municipal council.
It was alleged that the abolition was pursuant to a directive dated August 31, 1951, issued by the Secretary of Finance.
Instead of his former position, the position of corporal had been “created,” although it was conceded that Enciso was already a civil service eligible.

Enciso first filed a complaint with the provincial board against Mayor Remo.
Due to inaction on the complaint, he elevated the matter to the Office of the President.
On March 15, 1954, Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema indorsed an order for Enciso’s reinstatement directed at Mayor Remo.
Mayor Remo, however, refused to reinstate Enciso, prompting the filing of a petition for mandamus.

Initially requesting reinstatement and damages (P3,000 in moral damages, P1,200 in actual damages, and P500 as attorney’s fees).
On August 2, 1954, while the case was pending, the acting municipal mayor, Alfonso Sarto, reinstated Enciso, though issues regarding his complete restoration (badge, sidearm, salary) remained.
On October 7, 1954, Enciso further amended the petition to include back salary (P55 monthly) and additional claims for damages.
On February 20, 1956, Enciso amended the petition to implead the municipality of Goa after Mayor Remo’s term expired.

The lower court rendered judgment on November 26, 1957 in Enciso’s favor, ordering:

Payment of his accrued salary from the time he was refused reinstatement until his reinstatement as corporal.
Payment of attorney’s fees of P500.
Payment of costs.

Despite the inclusion of the municipality as a party at a later stage, the lower court did not originally hold it liable in damages.
Following the issuance of notices of appeal by Remo and the municipality, the lower court amended its judgment on January 16, 1958 to render the respondents jointly and solidarily liable.
The respondents later moved for dismissal on procedural grounds and contended that they were not liable for damages or back salaries, raising questions about the timeliness of petitioner’s motion and the nature of the action (mandamus vs. ordinary action for damages).

That Enciso’s position had been abolished.
That the lower court could no longer amend its decision to impose joint and solidary liability since the decision was already final for the petitioner.
That, under the circumstances, they were not liable to pay back salaries, moral damages, or other awards.

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Prior judicial decisions, such as Remo v. Palacio (April 28, 1960), were later cited to affirm that the action for mandamus retained its character and that the appeal period was uniformly 30 days.

Whether the petitioner’s position as a police officer was truly “abolished” or merely subject to a change in designation—from sergeant to corporal—as provided by legislative reforms.

Whether the petition for mandamus, after the petitioner’s reinstatement, was converted into an ordinary action for damages.
Whether the amendment filed by the petitioner to hold the municipality solidarily liable was timely and procedurally proper given the alleged finality of the decision.

Whether the respondents (Mayor Remo and the municipality of Goa) should be held liable for the petitioner’s back salaries.
Whether they should be held liable for additional damages, including moral damages, over and above the back salaries.