Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8136)
Facts:
Rafael Carreon v. The Province of Pampanga, G.R. No. L-8136. August 30, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Rafael Carreon commenced this action on October 21, 1953 against the Province of Pampanga and provincial officials Rafael Lazatin, Emilio Cortez and Librado D. Santos (defendants-appellees), alleging that he owned land on Duck Island, Guagua, Pampanga, which he was subdividing and intending to sell, and that to facilitate those sales he sought to have a bridge built across the Guagua River connecting Duck Island to the Guagua market site.
Carreon alleged the municipal council referred his January 1948 application to the Provincial Fiscal; that by Resolution No. 70 (June 17, 1949) the municipal council requested authorities to patronize the bridge; that the Provincial Board by Resolution No. 303 (April 12, 1950) appropriated P15,000 for the bridge and provided the municipality would defray the estimated balance; that after correspondence between local officials and Carreon he offered on August 14, 1950 to donate P10,000 toward construction; that he paid P5,000 to the provincial treasurer on April 25, 1951 (accepted by Resolution No. 930, June 30, 1951), and later paid P3,000 on August 16, 1951 after the District Engineer advised work had begun and requested the balance.
Carreon alleged that while the bridge was under construction the newly constituted Provincial Board (with defendants Lazatin, Cortez and Santos) passed Resolution No. 1687 (the complaint alleges June 30, 1952; the trial court referenced July 30, 1952) which "stopped the work" and diverted the funds to another bridge, and that despite demands the defendants refused to authorize resumption. He prayed for an order compelling completion of the bridge and for P150,000 damages for alleged malicious conduct (second cause of action).
On December 19, 1953 the Provincial Fiscal filed an answer on behalf of the Province admitting and denying various allegations and asserting a P50,000 counterclaim; separate answers and motions to dismiss followed by other defendants. Counsel for the defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga issued an order dated March 29, 1954 granting the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. The trial court's order reasoned that no express or implied contract bound the Provincial Board to complete the bridge, that the Board acted within its discretion in changing appropriations, and that the Board members acted in their official capacities and should not be held liable absent proof of bad...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss — i.e., did the complaint state a cause of action or did the trial court improperly pass on contested facts on a demurrer-like motion?
- Assuming the complaint's allegations are accepted as true, do they state a prima facie cause of action against the Provincial Board and its members (and may the officials be liable if they acted outside the sco...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)