Case Digest (G.R. No. 63216)
Facts:
The Hon. Expedito B. Pilar v. The Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 63216, March 12, 1984, Supreme Court Second Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Expedito B. Pilar was elected Vice‑Mayor of Dasol, Pangasinan in the 1980 local elections. The municipal officers who took office on March 1, 1980 included Lodovico Espinosa, Municipal Mayor, and several Sangguniang Bayan members. On March 4, 1980 the Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1 increasing salaries for the mayor and municipal treasurer but omitted any increase or appropriation for the Vice‑Mayor’s salary, despite circular guidance (Circular No. 9‑A) implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 which fixed the Vice‑Mayor’s salary equivalent to the municipal treasurer.
Petitioner repeatedly complained in writing and obtained endorsements from provincial and national officials urging compliance with Circular 9‑A; the Executive Secretary of the Joint Commission advised the municipal mayor to pay the Vice‑Mayor the prescribed rate. In December 1980 the Sangguniang Bayan appropriated P500.00 per month for petitioner’s salary, increased to P774.00 in December 1981. On October 26, 1982 the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution appropriating P15,144.00 to cover unpaid salaries from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982; the Municipal Mayor vetoed that resolution.
Petitioner filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus on February 16, 1983 to compel the Sangguniang Bayan and the municipal treasurer to pay his lawful salary under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and Circular No. 9‑A, and to recover actual, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. Respondents contended the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, raised factual issues (availability of municipal funds) beyond the Court’s cognizance, and claimed mootness because on April 20, 1983 the Sangguniang Bayan enacted an ordinance appropriating P29,985.00 as salary differentials for petitioner.
The Court gave due course to the petition on June 1, 1983 and required memoranda. Petitioner later admitted in his memorandum that he had been fully paid the salaries due under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and Circular No. 9‑A, rendering the salary claim moot, but he maintained entitlement to damage...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
- Did the petition become moot and academic once petitioner was fully paid his accrued salaries?
- Did the Municipal Mayor act in bad faith and become personally liable for petitioner’s damages for vetoing the appropriation and refusing to pay the lawful salary?
- Is petitioner entitled to actual, moral, exemplary damages and a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)