G.R. NO. 155477 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA LIBERTAD, NEGROS ORIENTAL, REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR LAWRENCE D. LIMKAICHONG, JR., VS. JUDITH C. PENAFLOR.

Ruling

Accordingly, by Resolution No. 980207 dated February 3, 1998, [5] the CSC ordered respondents reinstatement or restoration to her position. Then Mayor Camero filed a motion for reconsideration of the CSC Resolution which was, however, denied. On appeal by then Mayor Camero and herein petitioner, the CA, by Decision of February 23, 2000, [6] affirmed the CSC Resolution. [7] The CA decision became final and executory. On May 15, 2000, respondent was reinstated to her former position as Rural Health Midwife by Mayor Lawrence D. Limkaichong, Jr. who had in the meantime been elected in the recently concluded local elections. As despite repeated pleas for the payment of her back salaries due her at the time she was dismissed up to the time of her reinstatement, the same remained unacted, respondent petitioned the CSC to direct petitioner to pay her back salaries. By Resolution of 002737 dated December 8, 2000, [8] the CSC directed petitioner to pay respondent back salaries and other monetary benefits from the time she was illegally dismissed up to her actual reinstatement. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Resolution but it was denied by the CSC by Resolution No. 01080 [9] dated April 20, 2001. Petitioner thereupon elevated these CSC Resolutions to the CA. In its Petition [10] before the CA, petitioner proffered that the CSC erred in ordering it to pay the back salaries and other monetary benefits of respondent. It argued that former Mayor Camero alone should be held liable since he acted beyond the scope of his legal duty and authority, he having acted arbitrarily and without any legal justification in terminating the services of respondent, for he dropped her from the rolls out of personal spite. In support of its thesis, petitioner cited Salcedo v. Rama, 81 SCRA 408 (1978) which held: The municipal mayor alone may be held liable for back salaries of, or damages to a dismissed municipal employees, to the exclusion of the municipality, if the mayor not only arbitrarily dismissed the employee but also refused to reinstate him in defiance of the order of the Civil Service Commission, or if the mayor dismissed the employee without justifiable cause and without any administrative investigation . (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner also cited Correa v. CFI of Bulacan , 92 SCRA 312 (1979) which held: A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act, done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty , is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefor like any private individual (Palma vs. Graciano, 99 Phil. 72). This principle of personal liability has been applied to cases where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an employee wrongfully, the reported cases saying that by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of law in respect to removal from office, the officials were acting outside their official authority . (Emphasis supplied by petitioner; underscoring supplied) Petitioner further proff