Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21922)
Facts:
The Government of the Philippine Islands v. Rustico Padilla, G.R. No. L-21922. September 27, 1924, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court.
The Government (plaintiff-appellant) sued Rustico Padilla (defendant-appellee) in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to recover P119.99 which it alleged had been paid to Padilla by mistake as payment for accrued leave. Judge Adolph Wisjizenus of the Court of First Instance absolved the defendant from the complaint, and the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Padilla entered government service on July 1, 1919, as an employee in the Bureau of Public Works. By June 1921 he was serving as chief clerk in the office of the district engineer at Malaybalay, Bukidnon. On June 2, 1921, he obtained permission to be absent from his post to attend to private matters in Cebu; no definite leave period was fixed and, in fact, he received no salary while absent. He left Malaybalay on June 3 and, while in Cebu, telegraphed his resignation to the Director of Public Works on June 23, 1921, effective July 1, 1921. The Director accepted the resignation as effective June 30, 1921, and the Secretary of Commerce and Communications later approved it, whereupon Padilla ceased to be a government employee.
After separation, and with departmental approval, Padilla was paid P119.99 for accrued leave covering his two years of service. The Government maintained the payment was contrary to law and Civil Service rules and constituted a mistaken payment; the Auditor suggested recovery and the Government sued to recover the amount. The trial court ruled for Padilla. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the Administrative Code provisions governing accrued leave (notably ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Government recover the P119.99 paid to Padilla as accrued leave on the ground that the payment was made by mistake and contrary to law?
- Did Padilla meet the statutory requirement of "two years' continuous, faithful, and satisfactory service" so as to entitle him to accrued leave despite his absence without pay from June 2 to June 28, 1921?
- Can the courts annul the Department Head's allowance of accrued leave where the allowance involved t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)