G.R. No. L-15142 - NOVEMBER 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-15142November 29, 1966 Ramon Duterte, etc., et al. vs. Florencio Moreno, et al. G.R. No. L-18297November 29, 1966 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cadwallader Pacific Company G.R. No. L-19616November 29, 1966 Nemesia V. Alama vs. Macapanton Abbas, et al. G.R. No. L-19667November 29, 1966 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. American Rubber Company, et al. G.R. No. L-19801-03November 29, 1966 American Rubber Company vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-20813November 29, 1966 In Re: Jacinto Uy Tian Hua, Jr. Jacinto Uy Tian Hua, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20814November 29, 1966 In Re: Carmen Dy. Carmen Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21018November 29, 1966 In Re: Alejandro Tan Tiu. Alejandro Tan Tiu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21108November 29, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Leonor De La Rama, et al. G.R. No. L-21352November 29, 1966 Antonio J. Villegas, et al. vs. The Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-21585November 29, 1966 Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-21917November 29, 1966 In Re: Carlos M. Gurrea. Marcelo Pijuan vs. Manuela Ruiz Vda. De Gurrea G.R. No. L-22000November 29, 1966 Estelita Bernabe vs. Andres Bolinas, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-22288November 29, 1966 Asuncion Abordo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22526November 29, 1966 Pedro Pacis, et al. vs. Alberto V. Averia, et al. G.R. No. L-24563November 29, 1966 Milagros Pacheco Rivera vs. Arsenio Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-17125November 28, 1966 Bernabe Mirasol vs. Antonio Magsuci, et al. G.R. No. L-19633November 28, 1966 People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-21378November 28, 1966 Republic Flour Mills Workers Association, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-18500November 24, 1966 Arsenio De La Paz, et al. vs. Mario F. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-19495November 24, 1966 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lilia Yusay Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-20714November 24, 1966 In Re: Hui Eng. Hui Eng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22102November 24, 1966 Juan Paranpan vs. Perfecto B. Querubin, et al. G.R. No. L-22553November 24, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Urbano Damaso G.R. No. L-23246November 24, 1966 Urbano De Venecia, et al. vs. Aquilino Del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-19051November 23, 1966 A. D. Santos, Inc. vs. Zosimo Dabocol G.R. No. L-19075November 23, 1966 Estefania De Guzman vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-19407November 23, 1966 Juana Soberano, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-19716November 23, 1966 Herminigildo Guevara vs. Hon. Jose M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-17919November 23, 1966 Apolonio Javinia vs. Hon. Jose M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-21058November 23, 1966 Ilocos Norte Electric Company, Inc. vs. Municipality of Laoag, et al. G.R. No. L-22676November 23, 1966 B. J. Server vs. Epifania Car G.R. No. L-23239November 23, 1966 Martiniano P. Vivo vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-23791November 23, 1966 Chung Te vs. Ng Kian Giab, et al. G.R. No. L-18281November 22, 1966 In Re: Tse Viw. Tse Viw vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18966November 22, 1966 Vicente Bantoto, et al. vs. Salvador Bobis, et al. G.R. No. L-21270November 22, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Dadis G.R. No. L-22282November 21, 1966 Manuel Suarez vs. Municipality of Naujan, et al. G.R. No. L-22774November 21, 1966 Francisco Justiniano vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-24762November 14, 1966 Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission G.R. No. L-24841November 14, 1966 Ricardo Rosal vs. Manila Electric Company G.R. No. L-24854November 14, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-24872November 14, 1966 City of Manila vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21865November 12, 1966 National Power Corporation vs. Felipe Gatuangco, et al. G.R. No. L-21989November 12, 1966 Shell Company of the Philippines vs. Francisco R. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-23250November 12, 1966 Natividad Trinidad Vda. De Carvajal vs. Maria Natividad Florencia Coronado, et al. G.R. No. L-24320November 12, 1966 Citizens Labor Union-CCLU vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-24421November 12, 1966 Citizens Labor Union-CCLU vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Ramon Duterte, etc., et al. vs. Florencio Moreno, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cadwallader Pacific Company Nemesia V. Alama vs. Macapanton Abbas, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. American Rubber Company, et al. American Rubber Company vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. In Re: Jacinto Uy Tian Hua, Jr. Jacinto Uy Tian Hua, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines In Re: Carmen Dy. Carmen Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines In Re: Alejandro Tan Tiu. Alejandro Tan Tiu vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines vs. Leonor De La Rama, et al. Antonio J. Villegas, et al. vs. The Auditor General, et al. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In Re: Carlos M. Gurrea. Marcelo Pijuan vs. Manuela Ruiz Vda. De Gurrea Estelita Bernabe vs. Andres Bolinas, Jr., et al. Asuncion Abordo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pedro Pacis, et al. vs. Alberto V. Averia, et al. Milagros Pacheco Rivera vs. Arsenio Santos, et al. Bernabe Mirasol vs. Antonio Magsuci, et al. People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. Republic Flour Mills Workers Association, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Arsenio De La Paz, et al. vs. Mario F. Garcia, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lilia Yusay Gonzales, et al. In Re: Hui Eng. Hui Eng vs. Republic of the Philippines Juan Paranpan vs. Perfecto B. Querubin, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Urbano Damaso Urbano De Venecia, et al. vs. Aquilino Del Rosario, et al. A. D. Santos, Inc. vs. Zosimo Dabocol Estefania De Guzman vs. People of the Philippines, et al. Juana Soberano, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Herminigildo Guevara vs. Hon. Jose M. Santos, et al. Apolonio Javinia vs. Hon. Jose M. Santos, et al. Ilocos Norte Electric Company, Inc. vs. Municipality of Laoag, et al. B. J. Server vs. Epifania Car Martiniano P. Vivo vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Chung Te vs. Ng Kian Giab, et al. In Re: Tse Viw. Tse Viw vs. Republic of the Philippines Vicente Bantoto, et al. vs. Salvador Bobis, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Dadis Manuel Suarez vs. Municipality of Naujan, et al. Francisco Justiniano vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission Ricardo Rosal vs. Manila Electric Company Republic of the Philippines vs. Public Service Commission, et al. City of Manila vs. Public Service Commission, et al. National Power Corporation vs. Felipe Gatuangco, et al. Shell Company of the Philippines vs. Francisco R. Santos, et al. Natividad Trinidad Vda. De Carvajal vs. Maria Natividad Florencia Coronado, et al. Citizens Labor Union-CCLU vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Citizens Labor Union-CCLU vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15142           November 29, 1966

RAMON DUTERTE, ETC., ET AL.,petitioners-appellants,
vs.
FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL., respondents-appellees. SUSANO NEGADO, Manager of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority,respondent-appellant.

Manuel B. Roño for petitioner-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant.

REGALA,J.:

The facts of this case, which are not disputed are stated in the decision appealed from, as follows:

The petition prayed for judgment (1) directing the Bureau of Civil Service and the Executive Secretary to approve the appointments extended by the City Mayor of Cebu in their favor; (2) enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Manager of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority from exercising the power of appointment over the personnel of the Osmeña Waterworks System; (3) ordering the Auditor General and the City Auditor of Cebu to approve the payment of their salaries and promotions as authorized by the City Mayor of Cebu; (4) condemning the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay to the petitioners P200,000.00 as compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, P25,000.00 as attorney's fees and also the costs of the suit; and (5) such other reliefs as the Court may deem just, proper and equitable, including the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the Auditor General and the City Auditor of Cebu to pay the officers and employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System, pending termination of the case, their salaries and promotions for services actually rendered, meaning to approve the payments thereof. Petitioners, however, withdrew in open court their petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

In their separate answers, the respondents asserted in common that the petition states no valid and sufficient cause of action; that it is in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers in that it asks the court to intervene with the exercise of executive functions by the office of the President; and that the trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain the action it being in effect an appeal from the decision of the respondent Auditor General promulgated more than one month from the date the action was filed.

The lower court, after trial, dismissed the petition, declaring that the power to appoint the officers and employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System is lodged in the Secretary of Public Works and Communications by virtue of section 8 of Act 2009 creating the said system, and as expressly provided in paragraph 2, section 9 of Republic Act 1383 creating the National Waterworks and Sewerage Administration. The court further stated:

Failing in their motion for the reconsideration of the decision, the petitioners have appealed.

The Manager of the NAWASA, one of the respondents, also appealed, but only that portion of the decision where the court refused to entertain respondents' counter-petition for an order to have the administration, control and supervision and jurisdiction of the Osmeña Waterworks System transferred to the NAWASA, while the caseCity of Cebu v. The National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, G.R. No. L-12892, was pending before this Court. It is needless to pass upon the appeal interposed by the said respondent as the case aforementioned was already decided by us on December 29, 1960. Declaring the Osmeña Waterworks System to be a patrimonial property of the City of Cebu, in that decision, we reaffirmed our previous declaration inCity of Baguio v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-12032, August 31, 1959, of the unconstitutionality of Republic Act 1383, creating the NAWASA, insofar as it expropriates the waterworks system in the various cities without providing for an effective payment of just compensation. Our ruling in these cases was clarified in the case ofMunicipality of La Carlota v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-20232, December 29, 1964 where it was held that jurisdiction, supervision and control of waterworks owned by the city may not be vested in the NAWASA without destroying the integrity of the city's right of dominion.

Petitioners' appeal hinges on this lone question: Who is the official vested by law with the power of appointment over the officers and employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System?

Petitioners' contention that the Mayor of the City of Cebu possesses the power in question is based on section 1916 of the Revised Administrative Code, which reads, in part:

and section 21 of the Charter of the City of Cebu , Commonwealth Act 58, which states that "the Mayor shall appoint all other officers and employees of the city whose appointment is not otherwise provided for by law."

The above contention deserves scant consideration. The cited provision of the administrative code clearly refers to waterworks owned or administered by provinces and municipalities and does not include chartered cities. And the power of the city mayor under section 21 of the Cebu City charter applies only if the appointment is not otherwise provided by law.

Section 30, Article IV of the City Charter of Cebu states that the City Engineer shall have the care and custody of the public system of waterworks and sewers, and all sources of water supply. In relation to the duties and functions of City Engineers in all chartered cities, Commonwealth Act 424 states:

InEnrique Morales v. City Engineer of the City of Cavite, G.R. No. L-11665, December 29, 1960, where the power to appoint the employees of the Cavite Waterworks System was put at issue, this Court, thru Justice Dizon, has expressed the opinion that Section 79(d) of the Revised Administrative Code is the provision referred to in the above quotation (emphasized portions) governing the appointment of personnel in the engineering districts of the Bureau of Public Works. Said section says:

The conclusion was thus reached in that case that the power to appoint officers and employees of the Cavite Waterworks System is lodged in the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

Since, by virtue of section 8, Act 2009, the law creating the Osmeña Waterworks System, "the Director of Public Works of the Philippines shall have exclusive charge and control of all work to be done and improvements to be made" under the said Act, and in view of the similarity in the provision of the charters of the cities of Cavite and Cebu regarding their Engineering Departments, We see no reason to deviate from the ruling laid down in the Cavite Waterworks case,supra.

It is noteworthy that previous to the questioned appointments made by the Mayor of the City of Cebu to employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System in 1956, the City had recognized and acquiesced to the appointments extended by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications to such employees who were then receiving their salaries as authorized in said appointments.

In conclusion, We declare that it is the Secretary of Public Works and Communications who is empowered to appoint the officers and employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System. In this respect, and the declaration that the petitioners-employees of the Osmeña Waterworks are entitled to salaries for services rendered (a) for those appointed by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, at the rates therein authorized; and (b) for those appointed by the City Mayor, on the basis of the Minimum Wage Law, up to the time they have been duly advised of the disapproval of their appointment, We are affirming the decision of the lower court.

In conformity with the ruling laid down in a line of decisions¹where payment of back salaries to city employees was ordered although the city had not been made a party therein, We consider the City of Cebu a party in this action and, at this instance, liable for the payment of salaries of the Osmeña Waterworks for services actually rendered.

WHEREFORE, with the only modification that the City of Cebu is thus ordered to pay what is due the employees of the Osmeña Waterworks System, in accordance with the above pronouncement, the decision is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ.,concur.

Footnotes