Nessia vs. Fermin

Facts:

Petitioner Jose V. Nessia, formerly Deputy Municipal Assessor of Victorias, filed a complaint against Jesus M. Fermin (Mayor) and the Municipality of Victorias for recovery of reimbursements and damages, alleging that Mayor Fermin maliciously refused or neglected to act on Nessia’s vouchers for travel expense allowances because Nessia disobeyed Fermin’s instruction to register and vote in Victorias in the 1980 local elections.

Respondent Mayor Fermin answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations and asserting that Nessia’s vouchers could not be approved because they exceeded budgetary appropriations. The Municipality of Victorias adopted Fermin’s defenses and added that Nessia neither justified the excess draw nor amended his vouchers to conform to appropriations. Victorias failed to appear at the pre-trial and was declared in default.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch LXI, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental (Judge Artemio L. Balinas), after trial, found that the vouchers had been received (the secretary’s transmittal notation and presumption of regularity were credited), that Fermin maliciously refused to act, and that Nessia’s follow-up letters went unanswered; it rendered judgment for Nessia on 24 April 1987, awarding reimbursement (P1,424.75 with 12% interest from filing), moral damages (P10,000), exemplary damages (P2,000), attorney’s fees (P3,000), and costs.

Both Nessia and Fermin appealed to the Court of Appeals (Victorias did not). On 19 July 1991 the Court of Appeals (Kapunan, J., ponente) reversed and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, reasoning that the record did not show that the vouchers were received by Fermin and that even if received they were late and lacking appropriation; the CA construed Nessia’s pleading as admitting denial/refusal by Fermin. A motion for reconsideration was denied on 19 November 1991.

Nessia brought a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision and raising four main issues (plus a preliminary objection by the Office of the Solicitor General asserting that the CA decisi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Should the petition have been dismissed because the challenged Court of Appeals decision was not a certified true copy as required by Circular 1-88, par. 3?
• May the Court of Appeals reverse the trial court’s decision as to the Municipality of Victorias which did not appeal (i.e., reverse a decision that has become final as to a non-appellant)?
• May an appellee who did not appeal obtain affirmative relief on appeal?
• Did the Court of Appeals err in exonerating Mayor Fermin from liability for malicious refusal or neglect to act on Nessia’s vouchers under Article 27 of the Civil Code?
• Did the Court of Appeals rightly absolve the Municipality of Victorias from...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)