Facts:
The Hon. Expedito B. Pilar v. The Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, G.R. No. 63216, March 12, 1948, Supreme Court Second Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hon. Expedito B. Pilar was elected Vice-Mayor of Dasol, Pangasinan, and sought mandamus to compel the Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol and the municipal treasurer to pay the salary due him under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 as implemented by Circular No. 9‑A of the Joint Commission on Local Government and Personnel Administration, and to recover actual, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.
After the March 1, 1980 assumption of office by the municipal officials, the Sangguniang Bayan on March 4, 1980 adopted Resolution No. 1 increasing the salaries of the mayor and municipal treasurer but did not increase the vice‑mayor’s salary even though the vice‑mayor was entitled under the implementing circular to the same rate as the municipal treasurer. Petitioner repeatedly complained to provincial and national authorities; the Executive Secretary of the Commission advised the mayor that the municipality should pay the vice‑mayor the prescribed rate. On December 12, 1980 the Sangguniang Bayan appropriated P500.00 per month for petitioner’s salary, increased to P774.00 per month in December 1981. On October 26, 1982 the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution appropriating P15,144.00 for unpaid salaries (Jan. 1, 1981–Dec. 31, 1982), which the municipal mayor vetoed.
Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus on February 16, 1983. Respondents answered that the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, presented factual questions (availability of municipal funds) not cognizable by the Court, and had become moot because an April 20, 1983 appropriation ordinance purportedly provided for payment. Petitioner replied that mandamus was the proper, adequate and speedy remedy for the legal question whether appropriation for the vice‑mayor’s salary was ministerial, that the only factual issue left was damages and that the municipal treasurer had certified available funds. The Court gave due course on June 1, 1983 and required memoranda. Petitioner later admitted in his memorandum that he had been fully paid the salary due under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and Circular No. 9‑A, rendering the salary claim moot. The Court nevertheless proceeded t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
- Did the petition present factual questions (availability of municipal funds) that placed it beyond the Supreme Court’s cognizance?
- Did the subsequent payment to petitioner render the petition moot and academic?
- Was the respondent mayor personally liable for damages for refusing to appropriate and pay the vice‑mayor’s lawful salary an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)