Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5555)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5555)
Facts:
In Eugenio Reyes y Otra v. El Juez Pablo G. Cornista, Etc. y Otro, G.R. No. L-5555, March 25, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Pablo, J., writing for the Court, resolved a dispute about municipal authority to sue and to condone taxes and the propriety of extraordinary relief.The Government of the Municipality of Santa Cruz, Laguna filed a complaint on May 28, 1951 in the Justice of the Peace (Juzgado de Paz) of Santa Cruz (Civil No. 69) to collect P1,164 in unpaid license taxes from Eugenio Reyes and Iluminada Katindig, owners of the Selecta Hotel and Restaurant. The defendants filed an answer with special defenses and a counterclaim. At the trial level the defendants moved for dismissal (moción de sobreseimiento) on two bases: (a) municipal Resolution No. 35‑A (approved by the Laguna provincial board on August 22, 1951 by provincial Resolution No. 839), which purportedly asked the Justice of the Peace to dismiss the suit on the ground the municipal council lacked authority to institute it; and (b) municipal Resolution No. 70 (December 10, 1949), which declared that the council “condones whatever amount in the form of back taxes that may be found due” from the Selecta Hotel owner. The Justice of the Peace denied the motion to dismiss.
The defendants then filed a petition for certiorari with mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the Justice of the Peace and Assistant Fiscal Nestor B. Alampay; Alampay answered. On December 18, 1951 the Court of First Instance of Laguna issued an order dismissing the petition for certiorari without stating its reasons. The petitioners (defendants below) appealed this order to this Court. They argued, among other points, that Resolution No. 35‑A effectively desauthorized Fiscal Alampay from prosecuting the action on behalf of the municipality and that no one may sue on behalf of the municipality against its expressed will.
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing the petition for certiorari with mandamus without stating reasons?
- Can a municipal council resolution (Resolution No. 35‑A) desauthorize the provincial fiscal or his delegate from appearing in court on behalf of the municipal government?
- Did the municipal council have authority to condone previously accrued municipal license taxes (Resolution No. 70), thereby barring the municipal suit?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)