Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5856)
Factual Background
MARCELINO A. BUSACAY served as a pre-war toll collector at the Bued toll bridge in Sison, Pangasinan. His pre-war appointment had been classified by the Commissioner of Civil Service as permanent. After liberation he was reappointed October 18, 1945 at the rate of P720 per annum. He resigned March 21, 1946, was reappointed April 16, 1946, and continuously served until November 1947, when the Bued bridge was destroyed by flood. During a temporary closure from July 17 to September 10, 1946 for repairs, he and fellow collectors received no pay because they rendered no service; they resumed work when the bridge reopened without new appointments. The bridge lay out of service until reconstruction was completed about the end of November, 1950. Upon reopening, BUSACAY notified the Provincial Treasurer of his readiness to resume but was refused. ALFREDO MURAO, a civil service eligible, was appointed in February, 1951 and has since performed the duties. The bridge is a portion of a national road and a national toll bridge under Act No. 3932. Salaries of toll collectors were paid from toll collections. No appropriation was set aside for these salaries during 1948–1950 while the bridge was rehabilitated. On September 15, 1950, the board on toll bridges approved the Bued river bridge as a toll bridge and authorized fee collection.
Trial Court Proceedings
MARCELINO A. BUSACAY filed an application for mandamus and quo warranto with a demand for back pay and/or damages against the Provincial Treasurer and ALFREDO MURAO. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The trial court principally held that the contested position was temporary and that its functions were transitory and precarious, leading to denial of relief.
Issues Presented
The principal issue presented on appeal was whether the total destruction of the Bued bridge in 1947 effected an abolition of the office of toll collector so as to forfeit BUSACAY’s right to resume the position without a new appointment. Ancillary issues included the entitlement to back salaries and whether the Provincial Treasurer could be held personally liable or compelled to pay from public funds without proper authorization.
Parties' Contentions
The Solicitor General framed the matter narrowly, contending that the bridge’s total destruction abolished the toll-collector positions. MARCELINO A. BUSACAY contended that his pre-war permanent classification and continuous service after reconstruction entitled him to reinstatement and to back pay or damages for the period he was out of office. The Provincial Treasurer and ALFREDO MURAO maintained that the office was temporary and that no right to automatic reinstatement or back pay existed.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Abolition
The Court observed that to hold an office abolished there must be an intention to do away with it wholly and permanently, as the word abolish denotes. The Court found no evidence of any intention to abandon the bridge permanently. The bridge was indispensable to the highway network in northern Luzon. The Court concluded that the bridge’s collapse suspended the position but did not extinguish it. The post-destruction hiatus was thus a suspension of the incumbent’s rights rather than an abolition of the office.
Reliance on Precedent
The Court invoked authority permitting pre-war officers and employees to reoccupy their positions after disruption without new appointments. It specifically cited Abaya vs. Alvear, 82 Phil. 103; Garces vs. Bello, 80 Phil. 153; and Tavora vs. Gavina et al., 79 Phil. 421 as pertinent precedents supporting reinstatement of incumbents after an interruption beyond their control.
Determination on Reinstatement and Back Pay
The Court held that upon the bridge’s rehabilitation and reoperation as a toll bridge, MARCELINO A. BUSACAY’s right to the position was automatically restored. The Court therefore reversed the trial court insofar as it denied reinstatement and decreed reinstatement to the position held before the bridge’s destruction. The Court declined, however, to grant back salary or damages against the Provincial Treasurer. The Court reasoned that it would be improper to hold the Provincial Treasurer personally liable or to authorize payment out of public funds without the participation and authorization of the Provincial Board, which was not a party to the action.
Disposition and Concurrence
The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part: reinstatement was ordered for MARCELI
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5856)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- MARCELINO A. BUSACAY, Plaintiff and Appellant filed an application for mandamus and quo warranto with a demand for back pay and damages against the defendants below.
- ANTONIO F. BUENAVENTURA, in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Pangasinan, or his successor in office, was the defendant charged with refusing reinstatement and payment.
- ALFREDO MURAO, Defendant and Appellee was appointed to and was occupying the toll-collector position at issue.
- The action was heard by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- The case was brought to the appellate forum on appeal from the dismissal by the trial court.
Key Facts
- The appellant was a duly appointed and qualified pre-war toll collector at the Bued toll bridge in Sison, Pangasinan, with his appointment classified by the Commissioner of Civil Service as permanent.
- The appellant was reappointed on October 18, 1945, at a compensation rate of P720 per annum, resigned on March 21, 1946, and was reappointed on April 16, 1946, after which he served continuously until November 1947.
- The Bued toll bridge was temporarily closed from July 17 to September 10, 1946, for minor repairs, during which the toll collectors did not receive salaries because they had not rendered service, and they resumed work after reopening without new appointments.
- The Bued toll bridge was totally destroyed by flood in November 1947, after which the appellant and two fellow toll collectors were laid off.
- The bridge was reconstructed and reopened to traffic about the end of November 1950, whereupon the appellant notified the Provincial Treasurer of his readiness to resume duties but was refused reinstatement.
- ALFREDO MURAO was appointed in February 1951 and performed the duties thereafter, and the position then carried a salary of P1,440 per year.
- The Bued toll bridge formed part of a national road and was a national toll bridge under Act No. 3932, and salaries of toll collectors were paid from toll collections.
- No appropriation for the salaries was set aside in 1948, 1949, and 1950 while the bridge was being rehabilitated, and on September 15, 1950 the board on toll bridges approved the Bued river bridge as a toll bridge and authorized the collection of fees and rules.
Procedural History
- The lower court dismissed the petition for mandamus and quo warranto and the claims for back pay and damages on the ground that the position was temporary and its functions transitory and precarious.
- The Solicitor General narrowed the issue on appeal to whether the total destruction of the bridge in 1947 effected an abolition of the toll-collector positions.
- The appeal required review of whether the collapse of the bridge terminated the office or merely suspended its operation pending reconstruction.
Issues Presented
- Whether the total destruction of the Bued toll bridge in 1947 resulted in the abolition of the toll-collector positions.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to