Case Digest (G.R. No. 1078)
Facts:
John W. Hoey v. R. S. Baldwin, G.R. No. 1078, December 15, 1902, the Supreme Court, Willard, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner John W. Hoey alleged that since July 1, 1902 he was assistant chief of the Fire Department of Manila receiving a salary of $150 per month (U.S. currency); respondent R. S. Baldwin was the disbursing officer of the city. Hoey asserted that the Philippine Commission, by Act No. 430 (an appropriation), placed sufficient funds to pay his salary for the year beginning July 1, 1902, and that those funds had been placed under the control of Baldwin. He further alleged that he duly performed his duties and filed the required certificates for July, August and September 1902, tendered proper receipts, and that Baldwin refused to pay any part of those three months' salary.
Hoey filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court under article 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel payment. A summons was issued and served; Baldwin appeared and demurred, asserting lack of jurisdiction over person and subject‑matter, insufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action, and that Hoey had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Supreme Court heard the case on that demurrer.
The Court examined procedural questions under the Code (articles 222, 229, 230, and 390) and the statutory scheme governing city disbursements: Act No. 430 (appropriation), Act No. 183 (Charter of the City of Manila) Articles 6, 18, 19, and 25; Act No. 90 (rules 5, 25, 26, 55, 68, 72); and Act No. 145 (art. 1). Baldwin contended Hoey should have alleged the Auditor's allowance and that Rule 72 (appeal from Auditor) or an action against the city or the disbursing officer's bond provided an adequate remedy. The Court found the petition sufficiently alleged that the money was in Baldwin's hands as disbursing officer and that the duty to pay certified salaries was ministerial; it rejected the a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a demurrer proper in an original mandamus proceeding filed in the Supreme Court under article 515, given the procedural scheme of the Code?
- Does the petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for mandamus to compel payment of salary?
- Do alleged alternative remedies (appeal to the Auditor, action against the city, or suit on the disbursing officer's bond) preclude mandamus because t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)