Title
Rama vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-44484
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1987
Cebu officials abolished positions via Resolution No. 990, dismissing 200 employees; later hired 1,000, incurring moral damages. Courts upheld reinstatement, back salaries, and officials' personal liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44484)

Legislative Action and Resolution No. 990

During the administration of Governor Rene Espina, Vice-Governor Osmundo G. Rama, and other members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, a resolution, known as Resolution No. 990, was adopted. This resolution appropriated funds for the maintenance and repair of provincial roads and bridges and aimed to mechanize the maintenance system. The resolution declared the intent to replace the "caminero" system, resulting in the abolition of around thirty positions, which led to approximately 200 employees losing their jobs. The provincial government’s actions suggested a contradiction to their stated policy as a significant number of new employees were later hired, and funds were allocated for unnecessary expenditures, such as a luxury vehicle for the provincial engineer.

Legal Proceedings and Initial Rulings

Affected employees filed petitions for mandamus against the provincial officials seeking annulment of Resolution No. 990, reinstatement, and damages. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the resolution null and void, ordering the re-creation of the abolished positions, and directing the payment of back salaries, but denying damages due to a lack of a legal and factual basis. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but modified it to include the award of moral damages against the public officials in their personal capacities.

Appeals to the Supreme Court

Osmundo G. Rama appealed the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court, which consolidated multiple related petitions involving the same parties and issues. The Supreme Court also noted the similar nature of petitions filed by other parties concerning the dismissal of employees and the interpretation of jurisdiction.

Quasi-Delict and Personal Liability of Public Officials

The Supreme Court affirmed prior rulings establishing that public officials are not immune from liability for damages in their personal capacities for illegal acts committed in bad faith. The dismissal of provincial employees was pretextually conducted on grounds related to party affiliation, indicating malicious intent, which underpinned the officials' personal liability. The court emphasized that such actions contravene principles of public office and ethics, warranting personal accountability for the damages inflicted on the dismissed employees.

Damages and Legal Justifications

The Court assessed the moral damages awarded to the dismissed employees, recognizing their specialized and peculiar injuries due to wrongful termination. The dismissal not only caused economic hardships but also significant emotional and social distress

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.