G.R. No. L-10057; March 30, 1957
RICARDO DOMINGUEZ, DANIEL SAN MIGUEL, MARIANO CARDENAS, and MONICO GUTIERREZ, petitioners-appellants, vs. GOVERNOR WENCESLAO PASCUAL, Board Members AMADO GERVACIO and VICENTE JAVIER, in their capacities as members of the Provincial Board of Rizal; ARSENIO T. BONIFACIO, in his capacity as Acting Provincial Treasurer; and SALVADOR VILLAVIEJA, in his capacity as Provincial Auditor, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The four petitioners were civil service eligible employees of the Province of Rizal. In June 1952, Ricardo Dominguez was a junior clerk, Daniel San Miguel and Mariano Cardenas were Deputy Assessors, and Monico Gutierrez was Superintendent of Non-Christian Tribes. When preparing the annual budget for the fiscal year 1952-1953, the Provincial Board abolished their positions due to “insufficiency of funds to inaugurate improvements necessary for the public welfare.” The petitioners were notified of the abolition on or around June 30, 1952. They protested the abolition, appealing to the Secretary of Finance and later to the President of the Philippines. The President, concurring with the Secretary of Finance, directed the Provincial Board to restore the positions. Under this pressure, the Provincial Board recreated the positions effective August 15, 1953, but the petitioners were to receive pay only upon reassumption. Claiming the abolition was illegal, the petitioners filed an action for mandamus to compel the Provincial Board to appropriate funds for their salaries from July 1, 1952, to August 15, 1953, and for the Provincial Auditor and Treasurer to approve and make such payment. They also claimed moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment declaring the abolition lawful but requiring respondents to pay petitioners’ salaries for services actually rendered without pay up to the time they were duly notified of the abolition. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Provincial Board of Rizal had the authority to abolish the four positions of the petitioners without the approval of the Secretary of Finance or the President.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the Provincial Board of Rizal was legally authorized to abolish the petitioners’ positions. The Court ruled that the abolition of a position is not equivalent to removal, as removal implies the post subsists, whereas abolition means the post itself is extinguished. Citing the case of Rodriguez vs. Montinola, the Court held that under the Constitution, the President has only powers of general supervision, not control, over local governments. The Secretary of Finance, as an official of the central government, cannot disapprove the Provincial Board’s resolution to abolish positions, as such action is not a financial matter subject to his supervisory powers, provided it is not contrary to law, an act of maladministration, or an abuse. The Provincial Board, having created the positions, had the consequent prerogative to abolish them in the exercise of its discretion. The trial court found nothing personal or irregular in the abolition. However, the Court modified the decision, granting the petitioners separation pay for one month in lieu of the one-month notice they failed to receive, as provided under Executive Order No. 506 and in the spirit of Republic Act No. 1052 . The appealed decision was affirmed with this modification.