G.R. No. 102918 - Nessia vs. Fermin

The case involves petitioner Jose V. Nessia against respondent Jesus M. Fermin, Mayor of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and the Municipality of Victorias.
Nessia, then Deputy Municipal Assessor, sought recovery of damages and reimbursement for travel and food expenses incurred during the performance of his official duties.
The petition was filed on the ground that Fermin maliciously refused to act on vouchers presented by Nessia covering his claim for reimbursement.

The complaint alleges that Fermin deliberately ignored the vouchers because Nessia had defied a political directive by refusing to vote/register as requested by the mayor.
Fermin, in his answer with counterclaim, denied the allegations by asserting that the vouchers were not approved because they exceeded the appropriated budget.
The Municipality of Victorias joined the defense, arguing that Nessia was also at fault for not justifying or amending his requests to reflect the approved budget.

After issues were joined, all parties presented evidence except for the Municipality which was declared in default for non-appearance at the pre-trial conference.
The trial court found that Fermin’s inaction on the vouchers was malicious. It noted that:

The vouchers were received by the mayor’s secretary.
Despite the possibility that the vouchers might not have reached Fermin directly, his failure to make inquiries upon receiving Nessia’s follow-up letters indicated negligence.

Based on these findings, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Nessia, awarding him damages for travel expenses as well as moral and exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action.

The appellate court held that the evidence and even Nessia’s testimony admitted that, if anything, Fermin had acted merely by denying approval of the vouchers.
The CA opined that the vouchers were either not received by Fermin or were ineligible for payment due to timing and budgetary issues.

Discrepancies between the trial court’s findings (which were based on direct evaluation of evidence and testimonies) and the appellate court’s findings (which relied on the record and stenographic notes).
The petition raised four issues for review:

Whether the respondent court may reverse the final and executory trial court decision against Victorias, particularly since Victorias did not appeal.
Whether a non-appellant (the Municipality) is entitled to seek affirmative relief on appeal.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in exonerating Fermin from the charge of malicious inaction.
Whether dismissing the complaint absolved Victorias from liability, even though they had not appealed the trial ruling.

Before reaching the merits, a preliminary issue regarding the certification of the true copy of the appellate decision was addressed and dismissed as unmeritorious by the Supreme Court.

Whether the respondent court was correct in reversing the trial court’s decision despite its finality and executory nature as to Victorias.
Whether the trial court’s favorable appraisal of evidence should be given greater weight over the appellate review based solely on record reading.

Whether the Municipality of Victorias, having not filed an appeal, could be affected by, or seek changes in, the appellate decision.
The legal principle that a non-appellant is not entitled to seek additional affirmative relief beyond what was awarded by the trial court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in clearing Fermin of malicious inaction on the vouchers.
Whether Fermin’s failure to act on the vouchers, as established by the trial court, constitutes the malicious inaction required under Article 27 of the Civil Code.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the appellate court automatically absolved the Municipality of liability.
Whether the municipality’s non-appeal should maintain the trial court’s finding against it, despite the reversal on other grounds.