G.R. No. L-46585 - Ginson vs. Municipality of Murcia

Dr. Angela V. Ginson, a government employee, had been continuously, faithfully, and efficiently performing her duties as Municipal Dentist of Murcia, Negros Occidental since August 1, 1964.
At the time of her dismissal, she was receiving a monthly salary of P200.00.

On February 16, 1968 – merely 44 days after Municipal Mayor Baldomero de la Rama assumed office – the Mayor wrote and issued a letter terminating the petitioner’s services effective that same day.

The termination letter stated: “Please be informed that effective February 16, 1968, your service is hereby terminated, due to lack of funds.”
The letter, marked “SGD.”, was received by the petitioner on February 16, 1968.

Immediately after being informed of her termination, the petitioner approached the Mayor.

She pleaded with him for reinstatement on the ground that her tenure was protected by the Civil Service Law, which only allows removal or suspension for just cause.
The defendant Mayor refused to reinstate her and instead directed her to seek remedy through the courts.

The administration of the Municipality of Murcia claimed financial insolvency as justification for the dismissal.

It was alleged that an overdraft of P50,000.00 had been incurred, leading to the purported lack of funds.

At the time of the dismissal, available municipal funds were sufficient to cover the petitioner’s salary for February 1968 and for subsequent months until June 1968.
For the fiscal year 1968-1969, the municipality approved an annual budget of P270,000.00, which was more than double the previous fiscal year’s appropriation.
The municipality had approved salary increases for thirty-one employees and had also created new positions.

It ordered the private respondents (the Municipality and the Municipal Mayor) to reinstate the petitioner and to pay back salaries and attorney’s fees.

The appellate court found that the municipality’s financial condition, allegedly affected by the overdraft, justified the dismissal.

The Supreme Court was thus confronted with the factual issue surrounding the validity of the dismissal based on the municipality’s financial status.

Whether the municipality’s alleged financial insolvency or overdraft of P50,000.00 provided a sufficient and justified basis for the dismissal of the petitioner.
Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services, allegedly due to lack of funds, was a pretext masking an impermissible removal of an employee whose tenure is protected under the Civil Service Law.
Whether the acts of the municipality (such as the simultaneous approval of salary increases, creation of new positions, and extension of new appointments) contradict the claim of fiscal insolvency and thus invalidate the rationale behind the termination.