Case Digest (G.R. No. 198860)
Facts:
Abraham Rimando v. Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc., G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from a Court of Appeals decision.Petitioner Abraham P. Rimando was then the mayor of the Municipality of Naguilian, La Union. Respondent Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc., through its president Rosemarie Llarenas, operated an emission-testing business on a parcel of land that respondent alleges was formerly national domain but later certified by the DENR as alienable and disposable; respondent operated the business from 2005 to 2007.
On January 18, 2008, respondent applied for renewal of its business permit and paid the required fees. The petitioner refused to issue the renewal unless respondent executed a lease contract with the municipality. Respondent was willing to sign subject to proposed revisions which the petitioner would not accept, and the parties failed to agree. Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus and damages in Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, seeking to compel issuance of the business permit.
On May 26, 2009, the RTC denied the petition for lack of merit, reasoning that (a) Tax Declaration No. 002-01197 declared the municipality owner of the land; (b) Section 6A.01 of the Municipality’s Revenue Code authorized the municipality to require a lease; and (c) a mayor’s duty to issue business permits is discretionary, not ministerial, and thus not enforceable by mandamus. The RTC denied relief.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its March 30, 2011 Decision, the CA declared the appeal moot because the period covered by the requested business permit had lapsed, but nonetheless resolved the issues for academic purposes and reversed the RTC. The CA held that the tax declaration did not justify conditioning permit renewal on a lease and found Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2007‑81 void for failure to comply with the Local Government Code and its IRR; it also found petitioner not liable for damages because his actions were presumed in good faith and the remedy had become moot with the expiration of his term.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration in th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for mandamus moot and academic such that the Court should decline to grant the requested relief?
- Can a mayor be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue or renew a business permit, or is the issuance of business permits a discretionary exercise of dele...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)