Title
Pacete vs. Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 39456
Decision Date
May 7, 1990
A city attorney, suspended and terminated due to loss of confidence, sought backwages and damages. The Supreme Court ruled his termination lawful, denying claims, affirming confidential positions' nature and separation of powers.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 39456)

Facts:

  • Appointment and Service of Elias V. Pacete
    • On July 22, 1968, petitioner Elias V. Pacete was appointed as City Attorney of General Santos City by then-Mayor Antonio C. Acharon.
    • Pacete’s service as City Attorney commenced under a political environment where legal opinions could affect the delicate balance of trust between the officeholder and the appointing authority.
  • Political and Legal Developments Involving Mayor Acharon
    • On June 24, 1971, Mayor Acharon was charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of General Santos City and was detained without bail.
    • Despite his detention, Acharon ran for and was re-elected as City Mayor on November 8, 1971, pending the resolution of his criminal case.
    • On January 1, 1972, Acharon issued Administrative Order No. 1 designating Vice Mayor Erlindo R. Grafilo as Acting Mayor due to his temporary incapacity to discharge his duties.
    • Later, on June 29, 1972, while still incarcerated, Acharon revoked the earlier designation by issuing another memorandum, thereby challenging the authority of Acting Mayor Grafilo.
  • Disputes Over Authority and Subsequent Suspension of Pacete
    • Acharon filed two separate cases with the Supreme Court challenging Acting Mayor Grafilo’s authority, arguing that despite his detention, he retained the lawful power to discharge mayoral duties.
    • The Supreme Court dismissed these petitions, holding that the detention rendered Acharon temporarily incapacitated to discharge his duties, justifying the assumption of authority by Acting Mayor Grafilo.
    • Following these developments, Acting Mayor Grafilo suspended Pacete as City Attorney for a period of ten days starting July 11, 1972.
    • On July 20, 1972, petitioner received notice of his removal from the post on the ground of loss of confidence, which was ostensibly linked to his legal opinion upholding Mayor Acharon’s authority despite his detention.
  • Administrative Appeals and the Backwages Claim
    • Pacete appealed the termination before the Civil Service Commission, where the Acting Commissioner directed Acting Mayor Grafilo to allow Pacete to continue his service pending the final resolution on his appeal.
    • Acting Mayor Grafilo disregarded the directive and later appointed Atty. Hilarion Polistico as City Attorney on September 14, 1972.
    • On October 12, 1972, Pacete filed a claim for P2,275.00 in back salaries (covering the period from July 11 to October 15, 1972), relying on the directive from the Civil Service Commission.
  • Referral and Opinion on the Money Claim
    • The claim was forwarded by the City Treasurer to the City Auditor, and then referred to the Auditor General, and eventually to the Office of the President for opinion.
    • On February 18, 1974, the Assistant Executive Secretary, acting under the President’s authority, rendered an opinion that:
      • The termination of Pacete as City Attorney was in accordance with law.
      • Pacete was not entitled to claim back salaries for the period he was not legally discharging his duties.
    • Pacete’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied on July 8, 1974.
    • On May 22, 1974, the Commission on Audit, inheriting the functions of the Auditor General, rendered a decision disallowing Pacete’s money claim, which was executed by the City Auditor in refusing to audit the claim.
  • Filing of the Present Petition and Subsequent Manifestations
    • On October 15, 1974, Pacete filed his petition seeking:
      • Payment of back wages from the time he was suspended until the final termination of the case.
      • Damages against City Auditor Miguel Penalosa, Jr. for his refusal to pass the claim for back wages.
    • The petition did not include a prayer for reinstatement.
    • During the pendency of the case, parties raised issues regarding the case’s mootness, noting Pacete’s appointment in 1976 as Hearing Officer IV of the National Police Commission; however, the Solicitor General and Pacete himself maintained that there existed no supervening event rendering the case moot.

Issues:

  • Separation of Powers and Delegation of Authority
    • Whether the referral of Pacete’s claim from the Auditor General to the Office of the President for opinion violated the principles of separation of powers and non-delegation of powers.
  • Procedural Effect of the Auditor General’s Inaction
    • Whether the failure of the Auditor General to decide Pacete’s money claim within the prescribed sixty (60) days automatically entitles him to the back wages pursuant to Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 327.
  • Confidential Nature of the City Attorney’s Position
    • Whether the City Attorney’s post is primarily confidential and technical such that loss of confidence on the part of the mayor justifies the termination of the officeholder.
    • Whether Pacete’s removal on the ground of loss of confidence was a proper exercise of legal authority.
  • Liability for Damages
    • Whether City Auditor Miguel Penalosa, Jr. can be held liable for damages resulting from his refusal to pass the claim for back wages, given that his action was based on orders issued by his superior.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.