G.R. No. L-11973
June 30, 1959 FELIPE M. ROLDAN, plaintiff-appellant,
-versusPHILIPPINE VETERANS OARD, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Sergio I. Garcia and Oscar I. Garcia for appellant. Acting Solicitor General Florencio Villamor Villamor for appellees. MONTEMA!OR, J ." ."
Plaintiff Plaintiff Roldan is appealing appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing his complaint on the ground that the action brought against the members of the Philippine Veterans Board, hich as a mere agenc! of the government, as in effect a suit against the state and that it as done ithout its consent. "he #$%&' in this case are not controverted. Roldan as a first grade Civil #ervice eligible. $n March %&, '()*, he as appointed cler+ in the Philippine Veterans Board ith compensation at the rate of P%,'& a !ear, and he entered upon the performance of his duties. efendant ntonio F. /arcia, acting dministrative $fficer of the Philippine Veterans Board of hich he as a member and signing for the Chairman, in a letter dated March ', '()0 addressed to Roldan, among other things, said1 In this connection, attention ma! be invited to the provision of section % of ct %)2( and the Cabinet Resolution dated ecember %*, '(0&, reiterating its former polic! against the reinstatement in the service of officers and emplo!ees of the /overnment ho have retired under e3isting retirement cts and also to the provision of #ec. & of Republic ct 4%2, hich states that 5no person shall be appointed or reinstated in the service hen he is alread! fift! seven !ears of age, etc.5 In vie of the foregoing, and as !ou ere alread! fift! seven 6)47 !ears of age on March '', '()*, !ou are hereb! advised that !our services in the Board ill terminate effective at the close of business on March %), '()0. #o, Roldan as separated from the service on March %), '()0 and his place 8uan omingo as appointed. Roldan initiated 9uo :arranto proceedings against omingo in Civil Case ;o. %)&* of the CFI of Manila. "he trial court in said case decided in favor of Roldan, declaring his ouster to have been illegal. "he dispositive part of the decision reads thus1 I; VI<: := ?udgment is rendered declaring 8uan omingo not entitled to said office, and declaring plaintiff, Felipe M. Roldan, as the person legall! entitled and ith authorit! to e3ercise the same> and the Court orders that plaintiff be restored to said position. Costs against defendant.
#aid decision became final and as e3ecuted resulting in the reinstatement of Roldan to his former position on #eptember %0, '()). For the period of about '2 months that he as out of the service due to his separation therefrom on March %), '()0, Roldan filed the present action against the Philippine Veterans Board and its five members to recover his bac+ ages during said period plus moral damages in the amount of P),. including P&. for attorne!@s fees. "he trial court, through 8udge Auis B. Re!es dismissed the complaint on the ground that Republic ct ;o. &) creating the Philippine Veterans Board made said Board a mere agenc! of the /overnment to carr! out the purposes of said ct no. &)> that the salaries of the emplo!ees of said Board, li+e that of the plaintiff, ere appropriated ever! !ear b! la and that the salar! corresponding to the position of Roldan for the period from March %&, '()0, hen separated from the service, until #eptember %0, '()), hen he as reinstated, had alread! been paid to 8uan ; . omingo, the defendant over hom he on in the 9uo :arranto Proceeding> and that neither the Philippine Veterans Board nor its members can provide for the pa!ment of Roldan@s bac+ ages, having no poer to do so under the la, Congress being the onl! bod! that can ma+e the appropriation. In support of its ruling the trial court cited the case of Metropolitan Transportation Service (Metran) vs. Paredes , 4( Phil., 2'(. fter a careful, stud! of the case e agree ith the trial court that the ruling laid don in the case of Metropolitan Transportation Service (Metran) vs., Paredes, spra , is directl! applicable. In that case the Metran as created b! an <3ecutive $rder shortl! after liberation in order to provide transportation service for the government and its emplo!ees. It ould appear that as result of a collision resulting in damages, action as brought against it to recover damages. "his Court (e)* that the Metran as a mere office or agenc! of the government, unincorporated and possessing no ?uridical personalit! under the la, incapable of suing or being sued and that a claim against it ould in effect be a suit against the government, hich suit ma! not prosper ithout the government@s consent. In the case of Metran, the latter as a mere agenc! of the government operating under the Bureau of Public :or+s. In the present case, the Philippine Veterans Board as created and functioned under the epartment of ;ational efense. It is also a mere agenc! of the government. It is not a bod! corporate and politic in deed and in la, incapable of suing or being sued. ppellant contends that the Philippine Veterans Board is a ?uridical entit! ithin the meaning of article 00 of the Civil Code, hich reads as follos1 R". 00. "he folloing are ?uridical persons1 6'7 "he state and its political subdivisions>
6%7 $ther corporation, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created b! la> their personalit! begins as soon as the! have been constituted according to la> 6*7 Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to hich the la grants a ?uridical personalit!, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member. Counsel for the appellant merel! uotes the above-reproduced article ithout giving reasons h! the Philippine Veterans Board is included in its provisions. ?uridical person is a 5being of legal e3istence, susceptible of rights and obligations, or of being sub?ect of ?uridical relations5 6% #anche Roman, p. ''(, uoted in Padilla@s Civil Code nnotated, Vol. ', (0, '()& ed.7 It is clear that the Philippine Veterans Board hich as created under #ection 4 of Republic ct no. &) under the epartment of ;ational efense to carr! into effect the purpose of said act and to ta+e charge of effectuating the duties assigned to it b! la, hich Board is composed of a chairman and four other members to be appointed b! the President ith the consent of the Commission on ppointment from among veterans of the Philippine rm! and of recognied or deserving guerrilla organiations, hich members are entitled to per diems of P') each for ever! meeting actuall! attended, ma! not considered a ?uridical person ithin the meaning of the la, capable of being sued, especiall! for the recover! of bac+ salaries, hich salaries are appropriated onl! b! Congress. #o, a suit li+e the present one against the Board is in realit! an action against the government itself. In the case of S!"ia vs. Almeda #ope$, et al ., 620 Phil., *'%> 04 $ff. /a., &&)7, e held that a suit against an officer of a government b! a private citien hich ould result in a charge against or financial liabilit! to the government must be regarded as a suit against the government itself, and it cannot prosper or be entertained b! the Court e3cept ith the consent of said government. In the present case, a ?udgment in favor of Roldan for the pa!ment of his bac+ salaries for the period of '2 months hen he as out of service cannot be a charge against the Philippine Veterans Board or against its members for the reason that the board member acting as chairman in affecting the separation of Roldan from the service, assuming the same to be illegal, acted officiall! and in the name of the government. ;aturall!, an! ?udgment in favor of Roldan ould mean a charge to or a liabilit! against the Philippine /overnment. In vie of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereb! affirmed, ith costs against appellant.
