[ G. R. No. L-9230. April 23, 1957 ] 101 Phil. 79
[ G. R. No. L-9230. April 23, 1957 ]
ANDRES A. ANGARA, PETITIONER, VS. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ALFONSO TABORA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO; DOMINGO CABALI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TREASURER OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO; AND MAUKO M. MIRANDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY AUDITOR OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
FELIX, J.:
Antecedents.—On application of Dr. Andres A. Angara dated January 24, 1946, wherein he stated “that he was willing to go anywhere and accept any assignment that the health authorities shall designate, and once inside the service he shall not hesitate to be transferred from one station to another whenever the exigencies of the service so demand”, the petitioner was on October 25, 1946, appointed ad interim as City Health Officer of Baguio (Article VII, section 10, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Philippines; section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code and Annex A), and entered upon the performance of his duties as such on December 3, 1946 (Annex B). Said ad interim appointment was submitted to the Commission of Appointments of Congress and was duly confirmed by this Body on April 29, 1947 (Annex C). Since petitioner’s assumption of office he continuously and without interruption discharged the functions and performed the duties of City Health Officer of the City of Baguio until August 23, 1953, when petitioner, with previous approval of the Cabinet and with the consent of the City Council of Baguio, left for the United States to undertake further studies in public health administration in connection with his said position, the City of Baguio paying his monthly salary of city health officer of that city during his stay in the United States. Petitioner’s departure from the Philippines to study abroad was in connection with his application and acceptance of a fellowship in the PHILCUSA-FOA training program and after signing PHILCUSA-FOA (MSA) training grant agreement, wherein he expressed his conformity to abide by all rules and regulations of the institutions to which he may be assigned for study, training and/or observation, and to conform to such other rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the PHILCUSA-FOA, among which were: (a) the obligation to render not less than two years’ service to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines upon his return for every year of training abroad, any period of training, study or observation being computed as a minimum of one year for this purpose, and (6) the proviso that “the Government undertakes to restore the participant to the position most advantageous to the Government upon the completion of his training abroad. In iew of petitioner’s absence from the Philippines the President designated Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe as acting City Health Officer of Eaguio, said designation to continue only during the absence abroad of the regular incumbent of the position (Annex D). In virtue of this designation respondent Josefina A. Gorospe took her oath of office as acting City Health Officer of Baguio on January 29, 1954 (Annex D-l) and started to perform the duties inherent thereto. On August 26, 1954, petitioner arrived from the United States and reported to the office of the Secretary of Health who advised him to take vacation leave for one week, at the expiration of which petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health, dated September 7, 1954, informing him of his anxiety and decision to report to duty immediately as City Health Officer of Baguio (Annex E), and three days later, or on September 10, 1954, he resumed his old position. On September 14, 1954, petitioner received a telegram from Dr. J. Nolasco, Executive Officer of the Bureau of Health, calling him for a conference in Manila. He, there-fore, came to Manila and conferred with Dr. Nolasco, the Director of Health and the Secretary of Health, but before leaving Baguio he left written instructions to respondent Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe to take charge of the office during his absence (Annex F), Petitioner must have been informed by the health authorities in Manila that in consonance with the recommendation of Dr. Horace DeLien, Chief, Health and Sanitation Division, U. S. Operations Mission to the Philippines, he had been detailed to the Division of Tuberculosis to assist in the implementation of Act No. 1136 extending TB programs to the rural areas, and apparently petitioner was not willing to accept this job. So he returned to the City of Baguio on September 18,-1954, but upon arrival there he received a letter dated.
“Secretary Paulino Garcia, in a long distance telephone this morning talked to me that as far as the Department of Health is concerned Dra. Josefina A. Goroapo is the City Health Officer of Baguio. I was made to understand that the Department of Health has a program to accomplish and that your services in that line are desired. * * *. I was also requested to take measures and to inform the City Treasurer that your salary should not be paid by the City of Baguio; on the other hand, the salary of the City Health Officer will be paid to Dra. Gorospe as City Health Officer”
On that same day, September 14, 1954, Mayor Tabora also sent to Assistant Executive Secretary Mr. Enrique C. Quema a letter wherein the Mayor confirmed the report regarding the status of Dr. Andres A. Angara and Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe, the latter having been recognized as the City Health Officer of Baguio by the Secretary of Health, and informing him of the instructions he had given to the City Treasurer and the City Auditor that as far as.the City of Baguio is concerned Dra. Gorospe is the City Health Officer (Annex H). Consequently and despite demands from the petitioner, respondent Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe refused to surrender to him the office of Health Officer of the City of Baguio, notwithstanding petitioner’s contention that upon petitioner’s return to duty on September 10, 1954, respondent Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe automatically ceased as acting City Health Officer and that her designation (Annex D) became functus offido and either ipso facto or ipso jure became useless and without any further legal force and effect. The case.—In view of this situation and predicated on most of the facts mentioned in the antecedents, on September 20, 1954 Dr. Andres A. Angara instituted Quo Warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio praying in the petition:
That a writ if preliminary injunction be issued enjoining and retraining: (a) respondent Dra. JosefinaA. Garospe from furtherperforming the functions of the City Health Officer until further orders of the Court; and (b) respondent City Mayor Alfonso Tabora, City Treasurer Domingo Cabali and City Auditor Mauro M. Miranda of Baguio from further recognizing respondent Dra. Josefina A. Garospe as City Health of Baguio and to further commad them to recognize petitioner Andres A. Angara as the City Health Officer and to pay his monthly salary until further notice That after the due hearing judgment be rendered: (a) recognizing the petitioner’s right to continue discharging the duties and functions of the City Health Officer of Baguio;, declaringg respondent Dra. Josefina A Garospe guilty of usurpation, of unlawfully withholding the office of the City Health Officer from petitioner and og illegaly exercising the duties and functions of the said office; and (c) ordering respondent Dra. Josefina A. Garospe’s exclusion from said officeand to surrender herein petitioner any and all records and papers appearing to said office that might come to her possession. That petitioner be granted such other and further remedy which the Court may deem just and equitable in the premises, such as the speedy determination of the matter, and senticing respondent Gorospe to pay the costs.
Respondent failed their respective answer to the petition. They opposed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and prayed for the dismissal of the case with costs against the petitioner, respondent Gorospe further praying; (1) that the petitioner be ordered to comply with Department Order No. 167 issued by the Secretary of Health; and (2) that petitioner be sentenced to pay respondent Gorospe the sum of P5,000 by way of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. On October 11, 1954, the Locer Court provided that " upon the filing of the bond in the sum of P3,000, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for be issued, and that pending the final disposition of the case petitioner Andres Angara be paid his monthly salary until further order from the court. Petitioner filed the bond required from him, but the writ of preliminary injunction could not be executed because the respondents instituted in this Court a case of certiorari with preliminary injunction againts Judge Jesus de Veyra and Andres A. Angara (G. R. No. L-8408), and this Court issued on October 29, 1954, a writ of preliminary injunction commanding the respondent Judge to set aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by him in Civil Case 465 (Angara vs. Gorospe et al.), which command the respondent Judge obeyed on the same date. Subsequently (November 15, 1954), the hearing of the Quo Warranto case (No. 465) was postponed until final disposition of the certiorari case (G. R. L.-8408) that was pending before Us and which this Court, through Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, decided on February 17, 1955 (51 Off. Gaz., No. 2, p. 692), granting the writ of certiorari prayed for and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Baguio in its Civil Case No. 465, with costs against respondent Dr. Andres A. Angara. In view of said result respondents moved for the dismissal of the Quo Warranto petition inasmuch as this Court held:
“That the detail made by the Health Department Order No. 167, s. 1954, was valid and in consonance with the terms of the agreement voluntarily executed by the respondent Dr. Angara, and that the temporary occupancy of his position, in an acting capacity by petitioner Dr. Gorospe, did not constitute usurpation or unlawful withholding of the office of City Health Officer of Baguio, as all the essential facts were laid before the respondent Judge (as evidenced by the copies of the pleadings in the quo warrartto case in the court below) and it could not be hidden from him that no prima facie case of quo warranto existed.” (Gorospe et al. us. Judge de Veyra et al., G. B. No. L-8408—February 17, 1955).
The respondents further prayed that Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe’s counterclaim and/or cross-petition for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses before the lower Court and in the Supreme Court in the sum of P5,000 which she was obliged to incur as a result oi the unfounded litigation forced upon her by petitioner, be set for hearing and reception of evidence. In this connection respondent Gorospe submitted a supplement to her counterclaim and/or cross-petition. On the other hand, petitioner in his motion oi April 13, 1955, informed the Court that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in said certiorari case, he complied with Department Order No. 167 on February 20, 1955 (Annex A of the motion), but inasmuch as the petitioner was the recognized City Health Officer of Baguio from which position he had not been removed or suspended, he prayed the Court to pass upon the remaining issue relative to the payment of his salary as City Health Officer of Baguio during the time he was in effect enjoined not to perform his duties as such. After hearing of these motions of the petitioner and the respondents, the Court on May 16, 1955, ruled as follows:
“(1) These (Quo Warranto) proceedings are, therefore, dismissed; (2) the counterclaim of respondent (Gorospe) is also dismissed; and (3) respondent city officials are ordered to pay petitioner his salary accrued during1 the pendency of this case.”
From this order the respondents appealed to this Court, as follows: Dra. Josefina Gorospe from ruling No. 2 and respondent officials of the City of Baguio from ruling No. 3 thereof. In this instance the respondent city officials failed to submit their brief, even long after Dra. A. Gorospe had filed hers, so petitioner moved that in consonance with section l(e), Kule 52, in relation to section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the appeal bf said respondent City of Baguio officials be dismissed. In answer to this motion said officials filed their “Manifestation” wherein their counsel states that they were no longer filing a brief separate from that filed by respondent-appellant Josefina A. Gorospe, for the reason that all the respondents-appellants in this case had been represented in the lower court by the same counsel who has already filed a brief in connection with their appeal and that said respondents-appellants relied on the said brief. Acting on said pleas this Court resolved on December 7, 1955, to defer action on petitioner’s motion and respondents’ “Manifestation” until the case is considered on the merits. At the deliberation of this case previous to the rendition of judgment, a member of this Court called our attention to the fact that the assignments of error made by Dra. Gorospe’s brief refer only to the ground of her appeal (ruling No. 2); that nothing contained therein has any bearing on ruling No. 3 from which the respondent city officials have appealed; and that under section l-(/), Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, also in connection with section 1, Rule 58, an appeal may be dismissed for want of specific assignment of errors in appellant’s brief. Said member, therefore, states that it is now time to act on the matter and recommends that the appeal of respondent City of Baguio officials be dismissed because the ground of petitioner’s motion to that effect is, in his opinion, well taken. Before entering into the discussion of the merits of the appeal, We have to state that there is no dispute that the appeal of respondent City of Baguio officials has been allowed and that section 5, Rule 53, also in connection with section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, prescribes:
“Sec. 5. Questions that may be decided.—No error which does not affect jurisdiction over the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors and properly argued in brief, save as the court, at its option, may notice plain errors not specified, and also clerical errors”.
and as hereinafter will be shown, there is no question that the trial judge, plainly without authority or power, ordered said respondent city officials to pay petitioner, in their official capacity, the former’s salary accrued during the pendency of this case, when the funds with which said payment is to be made belong to the City of Baguio and this municipal corporation is not a party to this case. We, therefore, deny petitioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal of respondent city officials. Discussion of the controversy.—The only questions at issue requiring Our determination in this appeal, are the following: (1) whether or not respondent Josefina A. Gorospe is entitled to recover from the petitioner Andres A. Angara the sum of P5,000 with which to meet her attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and (2) whether or not petitioner Andres A, Angara is entitled to receive the salaries of the Health Officer of the City of Baguio that had been accrued during the pendency of this case, and in the affirmative case, whether the respondent city officials can be ordered to pay the same. Dr. Andres A. Angara commenced Quo Warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio for the purpose of securing from the Court Judgment in his favor restraining Dr. Gorospe from performing the functions of said City Health Officer, a position to which petitioner had been duly appointed by the proper authorities. It happened, however, that the respondent city officials, acting by direction or in conformity with the Department of Health and the recommendation of Dr. Horace DeLien, Chief, Health and Sanitation Division, U.S.A., Operations Mission to the Philippines, ordered Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe to continue performing the duties of the position of City Health Officer of Baguio to which she had been designated in a temporary capacity, with the understanding that she was to be paid, as she was actually paid, the salary assigned in the Budget for the position in question. Dr. Angara was not suspended or removed from his position as City Health Officer of Baguio. He was simply detailed to another position, undoubtedly with no less salary than what he then had, in accordance with paragraph of the Memorandum to the Agencies of the Philippine Governmerit for the sending of Filipino technicians abroad under the ECA Technical Assistance Programme, and naturally in such situation Dra. Gorospe could not surrender, against the instructions of the Department of Health and the recommendation of Dr. Horace DeLien, the position to Dr. Angara. And as the latter made Dra. Gorospe a respondent in the Quo Warranto case she had necessarily to defend herself and secure the services of an attorney to protect her interests in the matter. This she did by contracting the services of Attorney Claro M. Recto to whom she allegedly bound herself to pay the sum of P5.000 apparently including other litigation expenses. Our Civil Code reads as follows:
“ART. 2208.—In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs cannot be recovered, except: (2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interests; (4) In case of a clearly ‘unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. (11) In any other ease where the court deems it just and equitable thai attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should he recovered. In all cages the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.”
In the case at bar respondent Gorospe was the plaintiff in the counterclaim to the petition of Dr. Angara, and although the former was not compelled to litigate with third persons but with the petitioner of the action, yet there is no question that she had to incur expenses to protect her interests. The action which Dr. Angara instituted against the respondents had to be dismissed before the case was even heard on the merits and after the Supreme Court had rendered decision in case G. R. No. L-8408, and this could not have happened if said civil action prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio had not been clearly unfounded. Anyway, paragraph (11) of the aforequoted Article 2208 of the Civil Code empowers the courts (when they deem it just and equitable), to grant to any of the parties a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. Now, considering the nature of case No. 465 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and cases G. B. Nos. L-8408 and L-9230 of this Court, the standing of the attorney that appeared for Dra. Gorospe in all these cases and the actual purchasing power of the Philippine peso, it would seem that the sum of F5,000 she demands for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses is more than reasonable. However, and despite these reasons, a majority of this Court maintains that Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe as an officer of the City of Baguio was entitled to the services of the City Attorney and as the record fails to show any reason why this Government lawyer could not represent and properly defend her interests, she has not proved her right to employ the services and avail herself of the talents of so high rank and expensive lawyer and then charge the latter’s fees against the petitioner. Anent the aforequoted provisions of Article 2208, No. 4, of the Civil Code, a majority of this Court further argued: (a) that inasmuch as the petitioner won in the lower Court his motion for the issuance of a preliminary (mandatory) injunction commanding the respondent city officials of Baguio to pay his monthly salaries (during the pendency of the Quo Warranto case and) until further orders from the Court; and (b) that although the writ of preliminary (mandatory) injunction was annulled and voided by Us in disposing of the certiorari case filed in this Court by the respondents (G. R. No. L-8408), Mr. Justice Marceliano Montemayor vigorously voiced a dissenting opinion in favor of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Quo Warranto proceedings instituted in the lower Court by the petitioner against respondents is a “case of a clearly unfoitnded civil a’ction or proceeding against the plaintiff” (in the counterclaim). Hence a majority of this Court voted for the affirmance of the order appealed from in so far as it dismissed the counterclaim of Dra. Josefina A. Gorospe, for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. II. As stated before, Dr. Angara was detailed to the Division of Tuberculosis to assist in the implementation of Act No. 1136 extending TB program to the rural areas. The petitioner do not claim that in said detail he was to be paid less than the salary he had as, City Health Officer of Baguio. Yet, contrary to his commitments with the Government he refused to render the services attached to the position to which he had been detailed. As the case of Qua Warranto instituted by Dr. Angara was dismissed, and after such outcome he voluntarily accepted and started to perform the duties of the position which at first he had declined. We do not see Our way clear to uphold his claim to the accrued salaries of the position of City Health Officer of Baguio which he never earned. Such being the case We have to declare that he is not entitled to such accrued salaries. But this is not all. At the beginning of this Quo Warranto case in the lower Court, the trial judge issued a preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the respondent officials of the City of Baguio, among other things, to pay petitioner Andres A. Angara his monthly salary as City of Baguio Health Officer pending the final disposition of the case and until further orders from the Court. This order was immediately brought up to Us by certiorari of the respondents (G. R. No. L-8408) and We promptly gave due course to the petition and issued a preliminary injunction against the respondent judge forbidding him from giving force to said order that was the subject of the recourse. After hearing We declared that Dr. Gorospe did not usurp or unlawully withhold the office of City Health Officer of Baguio, and by making permanent the preliminary injunction issued We reversed the trial Court’s order commanding the payment to . Dr. Angara of his alleged monthly salaries as City of Baguio Health Officer. Consequently, by Our decision in said case G. R. No. L-8408, We made it clear that Dr. Angara was not entitled to the salaries of Baguio City Health Officer during the pendency of the case at bar in the lower Court, and it is to be remembered that the same decision moved Dr. Angara to ask for the dismissal of said Quo Warranto case, though insisting on being paid the salaries of the Health Officer of the City of Baguio for the period comprised within the institution of the Quo Warranto and its dismissal. But let Us assume for a moment that he had the right to collect said accrued salaries. Even so We could not order the respondent city officials of Baguio to pay them to him. The items for said salaries must have been appropriated and made ready for disbursement by the corresponding Appropriation Ordinances approved by the Council for the City of Baguio and were properly and duly paid to Dra. Gorospe, who acted as and actually performed the duties of Health Officer of said City. The salaries of this office for the period in question have already been spent, and before any payment to Dr. Angara of the accrued salaries he is now demanding could be made anew, it would be necessary that a new appropriation for the amount involved be duly approved by the Municipal Council of Baguio. The respondent city officials have been sued in their official capacity and nothing of record shows that they should pay said accrued salaries out of their personal funds and much less when they won the case. As the City of Baguio is not a party to these proceedings, it cannot be compelled without hearing and without due process of law, to pass an ordinance appropriating and authorizing the disbursement and payment to Dr. Angara of the alleged accrued salaries he claims for a period during which he did not render any services to the city of Baguio. Wherefore and on the; strenght of the foregoing considerations, We affirm ruling No. 2 and reverse ruling No. 3 of the order of the lower Court of May IS, 1955, appealed from, and, consequently, We hereby deny the claim of respondent Dra. Josefina A, Gorospe in the sum of five thousand pesos (P5,000) for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, as well as the claim of petitioner Dr. Andres A. Angara to his alleged accrued salaries as Health Officer of Baguio during the time he was in effect enjoined from performing his duties as such. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Paras, C. J., Bautista Angela, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur. Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.