Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34024)
Facts:
Arenas v. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-34024, April 05, 1978, First Division, Fernandez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Isidro G. Arenas, the incumbent City Judge of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch X, in January 1971 against the City of San Carlos, its City Council and city officials (Mayor, Vice‑Mayor, councilors and City Treasurer), seeking payment of a salary differential allegedly due under Republic Act No. 5967.The petition alleged that when RA 5967 became effective on June 21, 1969, San Carlos was a third class city and the statute fixed the basic salary of city judges of second and third class cities at P18,000 per annum; petitioner was then receiving P12,000 per annum (P1,000 monthly) — P350 from the national government and P650 from the city — thus claiming a P9,500 differential from June 21, 1969 to filing. Petitioner averred repeated requests for enactment of the necessary budget and payment were refused, that mandamus was his only plain, adequate and speedy remedy, and sought attorneys’ fees.
Respondents in their answer admitted some allegations but asserted that Section 7 of RA 5967 contains a proviso that a city judge’s salary shall be at least P100 per month less than that of the city mayor; they pointed out the San Carlos mayor received P13,200 per annum (P1,100 monthly), exactly P100 more per month than petitioner’s salary, and argued the proviso qualified the P18,000 figure and left implementation to the discretion or fiscal capacity of the city government. They also cited the city’s financial difficulties.
The Court of First Instance, Branch X, dismissed the petition for mandamus by decision dated May 31, 1971. Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the proviso in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967 — that the salary of a city judge shall be at least P100 per month less than that of the city mayor — qualify or control the statute’s prior provision fixing P18,000 per annum for city judges of second and third class cities?
- If the proviso controls, was petitioner entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the city to pa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)