Facts:

The case involves petitioner Anacleto B. Alzate, who was serving as the principal of the South Provincial High School in Agoo, La Union. Alzate filed a petition for mandamus on June 11, 1958, against respondents Benigno Aldana, the Director of Public Schools, and Zacarias G. de Vera, the Division Superintendent of Schools for La Union, to compel them to adjust his salary according to the provisions set forth in Republic Act No. 842, also known as the "Public School Salary Act of 1953." Alzate had an extensive 24-year career in public education and retired on July 31, 1959, under Republic Act No. 1616.

On June 3, 1957, Republic Act No. 2042 was enacted, which provided for salary adjustments for public school officials, teachers, and personnel based on years of service and qualifying civil service examinations. Following this law, on November 8, 1957, Alzate received a salary adjustment of P30.00 a month, raising his salary from P230.00 to P260.00. In his request for a

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner: Anacleto B. Alzate, serving in his official capacity as Principal of the South Provincial High School, Agoo, La Union.
• Respondents:
• Benigno Aldana, acting as Director of Public Schools.
• Zacarias G. De Vera, acting as Division Superintendent of Schools for La Union.
• Relevant Statutes and Acts:
• Republic Act No. 842 (Public School Salary Act of 1953) – provides the statutory basis for salary adjustments, including provisions for minimum salary requirements and automatic salary increases.
• Republic Act No. 2042 – appropriated funds (P3,028,000.00) for adjusting salaries of public school officials and personnel, providing for automatic increases “for every five years of service rendered” and for qualifying in the next higher civil service examination.

Salary Adjustment and Dispute

• Initial Salary Adjustment:
• On November 8, 1957, petitioner’s salary was adjusted from P230.00 to P260.00 per month as per RA Nos. 842 and 2042.
• The adjustment comprised P15.00 to meet the minimum salary directive (raising it from P230.00 to P245.00) and an additional P15.00 representing one automatic salary rate increase.
• Petitioner's Claim:
• Petitioner's service record indicated 24 years of service as of July 1, 1957.
• Having qualified in the Superintendent of Private Schools civil service examination, petitioner argued he was entitled to an extra salary rate.
• Thus, he claimed entitlement to a total of 5 salary rates – 4 for his years of service (per Section 4-a) and 1 for qualifying in the higher civil service examination (per Section 4-b).

Administrative and Procedural Developments

• Petitioner’s Initiatives:
• On December 20, 1957, petitioner formally requested that the Director of Public Schools grant the additional salary increase.
• The request was denied in an endorsement dated March 10, 1958.
• A follow-up letter seeking reconsideration was submitted on May 17, 1958.
• Government Assurance and Subsequent Actions:
• On June 27, 1958, respondents, through counsel, agreed in open court to recommend the release of funds (P840.00) for petitioner and other similarly positioned school officials and teachers.
• Relying on that assurance, petitioner desisted from pressing his request for a preliminary injunction.
• Later, the amount of P1,146,522.06 was obligated on June 30, 1958.

Judicial History

• Mandamus Action:
• Petitioner filed an action for mandamus on June 11, 1958, seeking to compel respondents to adjust his salary according to the provisions of RA No. 842 and RA No. 2042.
• The Court of First Instance of La Union dismissed the petition on July 31, 1958, on the ground of non-exhaustion of all administrative remedies.
• Appeal and Remand:
• Petitioner appealed the dismissal (G.R. No. L-14407).
• On February 29, 1960, the Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• After a merits hearing, on November 5, 1960, the lower court declared petitioner entitled to 4 salary rates (for his length of service) but held that issuing a writ of mandamus concerning the extra rate for the civil service exam was not warranted.

Contentions on Appeal

• Petitioner's Assignment of Errors:
• The lower court was alleged to have erred in finding no clear duty on the part of respondents to recommend an additional salary increase rate for qualifying in the civil service examination.
• The petitioner contended that the statutory provisions mandated such an increase.
• Administrative and Budgetary Considerations:
• The appellate arguments referenced budgetary frameworks and Cabinet directives arising from RA No. 2042 and provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 246.
• These provided that adjustments should be confined to a maximum of 4 rates from the minimum salary, under the control of higher authorities (i.e., the President and Cabinet).

Issue:

• Whether the respondents, in their official capacities, have a clear legal duty and the power to recommend one additional rate of salary increase for petitioner’s qualification in the Superintendent of Private Schools examination.
• Whether the statutory provisions and budgetary constraints—specifically, the Cabinet directive limiting salary increases to 4 rates—prevent the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel an extra salary recommendation.
• Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy in cases where the duty of the administrative officer is not clearly and peremptorily imposed by statute or when performance of the act falls under the discretion of higher budgeting and executive approval.
• Whether the general grant of power under Section 910(c) of the Revised Administrative Code can be construed to override specific laws and administrative guidelines relating to salary adjustments.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)