G.R. No. L-34024 - Arenas vs. City of San Carlos, Pangasi

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34024)

Factual Background

Arenas instituted in January 1971 a petition for mandamus against the City of San Carlos, the City Council, and the city officials charged with salary administration. He alleged that San Carlos City had been classified as a third class city since its creation in 1966. He invoked Republic Act No. 5967, which he claimed fixed the basic salary of city judges in second and third class cities and mandated that any salary difference between what a city judge actually received and the statutory basic salary should be paid by the city government.

Arenas asserted that at the time material to the petition, he received a monthly salary of P1,000.00, broken down into a P350.00 share from the national government and a P650.00 share from the city government. He contended that this amount was P500.00 below the basic monthly salary for a city judge of a third class city under Republic Act No. 5967. He further alleged that from June 21, 1969 until the filing of his petition on January 21, 1971, he was entitled to a salary differential of P9,500.00, but the respondents repeatedly refused to enact the necessary budget and to pay the differential despite his demands.

He also alleged that mandamus was his only plain, adequate, and speedy remedy. He sought not only payment of the claimed differential but also attorney’s fees in the amount of P2,000.00, which he claimed he would have to pay because of the respondents’ refusal to comply with the alleged statutory obligation.

The Respondents’ Position

In their answer dated February 10, 1971, the respondents admitted and denied various allegations. They invoked additional statutory language from Republic Act No. 5967 to argue that the salary of a city judge should be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor. They stated that the city judge received an annual salary of P12,000.00, which they claimed was P100.00 per month less than the annual salary of the city mayor, which they said was P13,200.00.

They further maintained that even if a salary difference were assumed to exist, the payment of any salary differential was subject to the manner and implementation by the city government, which they characterized as discretionary, particularly in view of the city’s financial difficulties, including a “big overdraft.” On attorney’s fees, they argued that Arenas should bear his own lawyer’s fees because they had not violated any right of the petitioner.

Proceedings in the Court of First Instance

The Court of First Instance of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), Branch X, rendered a decision dated May 31, 1971, dismissing the mandamus petition, without pronouncement as to costs. The Supreme Court later reviewed that dismissal through the present petition for certiorari.

Statutory Provision in Dispute and the Parties’ Statutory Interpretation

The controversy centered on the pertinent portion of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967, which provided, among others, that unless a city charter or special law provided higher salary, the city judge in chartered cities shall receive a basic salary not lower than stated sums, including P18,000.00 per annum for second and third class cities. The same section also contained the proviso that “the salary of a city judge shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor.””

Arenas argued that the “last proviso” could not be treated as the controlling measure for fixing city judges’ salary, because such an interpretation would render useless the principal provision of Section 7 which, he argued, fixed a salary level for city judges in second and third class cities that was substantially higher than the salary of a city mayor. He asserted that the legislature’s principal intention in enacting Section 7 was to increase city judges’ salary, and therefore the last proviso should yield to the earlier salary-fixing provisions.

The respondents and the trial court, however, treated the proviso as a limiting rule affecting the operative salary for city judges relative to the mayor’s compensation.

Material Undisputed Salaries and the Legislative Purpose

The record showed that when Republic Act No. 5967 took effect on June 21, 1969, San Carlos City was a third class city. It was also shown that Arenas then received an annual salary of P12,000.00, while the city mayor received an annual salary of P13,200.00, which the decision described as exactly P100.00 a month more than the city judge’s salary.

The decision also discussed the legislative deliberations in the Senate on House Bill No. 17046, which became Republic Act No. 5967. The Court recounted that the senators discussed the fairness and administrative practicality of ensuring that, in all city charters, no city judge—identified during the debates as a department head—would receive a salary higher than the city mayor, the chief executive of the city. The Court emphasized that, in the deliberations, the “at least” formulation was explained as a limit or maximum, not requiring the council to pay exactly P100.00 less, but allowing the salary to be fixed at lower amounts as long as the statutory comparative requirement was observed.

Supreme Court’s Resolution of the Statutory Construction Issue

The Court held that it was clear from the Senate deliberations that the intention of Congress in enacting Republic Act No. 5967 was that the salary of a city judge should not be higher than the salary of the city mayor. The Court treated the proviso—stating that the city judge’s salary shall be at least P100.00 per month less than that of the mayor—as qualifying the earlier clause fixing basic salaries for second and third class cities at P18,000.00 per annum.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied the rule on the function of a proviso in statutory construction. The Court stated that a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34024)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Isidro G. Arenas, the incumbent City Judge of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan at San Carlos City, Branch X.
The respondents included the City of San Carlos (Pangasinan), the City Council of San Carlos City, and named city officials in their official capacities as City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor, City Councilors, and City Treasurer, as well as the Honorable Presiding Judge of the court of origin.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition for mandamus by decision dated May 31, 1971, without pronouncement as to costs.
Arenas then filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the dismissal.

Key Factual Allegations

Arenas alleged that San Carlos City had been classified as a third class city since its creation in 1966.
He alleged that Republic Act No. 5967 took effect on June 21, 1969 and provided a basic salary of P18,000.00 per annum for city judges of second and third class cities.
He asserted that, at the time, he was receiving a monthly salary of P1,000.00, comprised of P350.00 from the national government and P650.00 from the city government.
He claimed his salary was P500.00 below the basic monthly salary contemplated for a city judge of a third class city.
He contended that under Republic Act No. 5967, the city government had the duty to pay the difference between the actual salary and the statutory basic salary.
He alleged that from June 21, 1969 until the filing of the mandamus petition on January 21, 1971, he was entitled to a salary differential of P9,500.00.
He alleged that he repeatedly requested the respondents to enact the necessary budget and to pay the salary differential but that the respondents refused without justification.
He asserted that he had no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy except mandamus and that he had to engage counsel, paying P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

Respondents’ Answer

The respondents admitted and denied allegations as stated in the record and invoked the salary structure under Republic Act No. 5967, particularly the proviso that the city judge’s salary should be at least P100.00 per month less than that of the city mayor.
They stated that the city judge’s annual salary was P12,000.00, which they described as P100.00 per month less than the city mayor’s annual salary of P13,200.00.
They argued that any payment of a salary difference was subject to the implementation by the city government, which they characterized as discretionary.
They alleged financial difficulties, including a “big overdraft,” which they claimed prevented payment of any salary difference.
They maintained that the petitioner should bear his own lawyer’s fees because they had not violated the petitioner’s rights.

Statutory Framework: Republic Act No. 5967

The Court of First Instance decision turned on Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967, particularly the clause fixing the basic salary of city judges of chartered cities.
The pertinent language stated that for second and third class cities, the city judge’s basic salary was eighteen thousand pesos per annum.
The same section contained a proviso stating: “Provided, however, That the salary of a city judge shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor.”
The petitioner treated the earlier part of Section 7 as establishing a higher fixed salary for city judges of second and third class cities, and he argued that the proviso should not defeat the general salary increase.