G.R. No. 188448 - Laygo vs. Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya

In July 2005, Aniza Bandrang sent two letters to Mayor Santiago O. Dickson and the Sangguniang Bayan of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, complaining about illegal subleasing by petitioners Rodolfo and Willie Laygo over Public Market Stalls Nos. 77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B, which they leased from the Municipal Government.
Bandrang alleged that petitioners forced her to vacate the stalls which they then subleased to a third party. She expressed her willingness to testify and requested priority in leasing the stalls she vacated in the future.

In August 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan endorsed Bandrang’s complaint and a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004 to Mayor Dickson, authorizing him to enforce the prohibition against subleasing of market stalls.
The Sangguniang opined that enforcement fell under the Mayor’s jurisdiction, as Resolution No. 183-2004 vested him with the authority to cancel leases violating the subleasing prohibition.

Mayor Dickson responded that the stalls were constructed under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme, entitling petitioners to keep the stalls until the BOT agreement was fully complied with. He questioned if the subleasing prohibition applied similarly under the BOT arrangement.
Bandrang wrote another letter recommending cancellation of the lease contracts of petitioners for violating the subleasing provision, and suggested rebidding the stalls.
The Sangguniang again forwarded Bandrang’s letter and asserted that the Mayor was empowered by Resolution No. 183-2004 to cancel violating leases without further recommendation.
Mayor Dickson, however, did not act on these correspondences.

Due to Mayor Dickson’s inaction, Bandrang filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, later amending to implead petitioners.
Bandrang alleged that the Mayor unlawfully neglected his duty to enforce the lease contract provisions prohibiting subleasing, thus sought an order directing cancellation of the lease contracts with petitioners and leasing to interested parties.

Mayor Dickson’s Answer claimed that Bandrang had no cause of action due to pari delicto (guilt shared by Bandrang herself), lack of standing, and that enforcement was discretionary. He maintained he acted lawfully by referring the matter to the Sangguniang Bayan.
Petitioners denied being lessees, claiming their mother, Clarita Laygo, leased the stalls under a BOT scheme. They asserted the subleasing prohibition and Resolution No. 183-2004 did not apply to BOT contracts. Even assuming applicability, they argued any subleasing alleged had ceased and subsequent rental payments ratified their status.
During pre-trial, Mayor Dickson introduced a Sangguniang resolution directing stall owners to build their own stalls after a fire destroyed the market.

On January 28, 2008, the RTC granted Bandrang’s petition and ordered Mayor Dickson to enforce the subletting provisions of the lease contract and the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions.
The RTC ruled that the contract between petitioners and the Municipal Government was a lease, backed by certification from former Mayor Epifanio LD. Galima.
The RTC set aside the absence of a written lease contract due to public interest considerations.
It found that petitioners admitted non-payment of rentals by presenting receipts for arrears, violating lease terms and justifying Resolution No. 183-2004.
The court concluded that Mayor Dickson’s failure to implement the resolution constituted unlawful neglect of duty.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Mayor Philip A. Dacayo, successor to Mayor Dickson, manifested willingness to implement the resolutions.
On December 16, 2008, the CA dismissed the appeal, affirming the RTC that petitioners were bound by a lease contract subject to the anti-subleasing policy and that mandamus was proper to compel Mayor Dickson’s ministerial duty or at least compel action in the matter.
The CA held that although mandamus does not direct how discretion must be exercised, it could compel Mayor Dickson to decide whether to enforce cancellation.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, denied by the CA on June 19, 2009.
They questioned (a) whether Resolution No. 183-2004 applied without an actual lease contract, and (b) if enforcement authority passed to someone other than Mayor Dickson after his term ended.
The Municipal Government argued enforcement extended to succeeding mayors per subsequent resolutions.

Whether Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 may be applied against the petitioners despite the absence of a lease contract between them and the Municipal Government.
Whether the enforcement of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 is limited to Mayor Dickson or could be exercised by his successors or other officials.
Whether mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the Mayor to cancel the lease contracts and lease the vacated stalls.
Whether petitioner Bandrang has the legal standing to file the petition for mandamus.