Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34024)
Procedural History
Petitioner Arenas filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (San Carlos City, Branch X) in January 1971 seeking enforcement against the city and its officials to pay the salary differential allegedly due under Republic Act No. 5967. The trial court dismissed the mandamus petition by decision dated May 31, 1971. The present matter is a petition for certiorari to review that dismissal.
Factual Background
When RA No. 5967 took effect (June 21, 1969), San Carlos City was a third-class city. Petitioner was receiving an annual salary of P12,000.00 (P1,000.00 per month), composed of P350.00 from the national government and P650.00 from the city, which the petitioner alleged was P500.00 per month below the statutory basic salary for a city judge of a third-class city under RA No. 5967 (P18,000.00 per annum). Petitioner claimed entitlement to a salary differential amounting to P9,500.00 from June 21, 1969 to the filing date (January 21, 1971) and alleged repeated requests to respondents to enact the necessary budget, all of which were refused. Petitioner asserted lack of any plain, adequate and speedy remedy other than mandamus and sought attorney’s fees of P2,000.00.
Respondents’ Position
The respondents denied liability and asserted that RA No. 5967 contains a proviso that the salary of a city judge shall be at least P100.00 per month less than that of the city mayor. They stated that the city judge in San Carlos was receiving P12,000.00 per year and the city mayor P13,200.00 per year (exactly P100.00 per month more). Respondents further alleged that the payment of any salary difference under RA No. 5967 is subject to implementation by the respective city government and that payment was discretionary and constrained by the city’s financial difficulties, including a large overdraft. Respondents contended petitioner should bear his own attorney’s fees.
Statutory Provision in Dispute
Section 7 of RA No. 5967 (as quoted in the record) sets minimum basic salaries for city judges and contains the proviso: “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 section also provides (for second and third class cities) a basic salary stated as P18,000.00 per annum for city judges and includes comparative phrases referencing district judges’ salaries.
Petitioner’s Argument on Statutory Construction
Petitioner argued that the principal salary schedule in Section 7 (fixing P18,000.00 for city judges of second and third class cities) manifests the legislature’s primary intent to increase city judges’ salaries and that the proviso should not be interpreted to nullify that primary provision. He urged that the proviso be subordinated to the principal provision so as to effectuate the intended salary increase.
Legislative History and Congressional Intent
The Court reviewed Senate deliberations on the bill that became RA No. 5967. The quoted discussions show senators expressed concern that, without amendment, some city judges might receive higher salaries than city mayors. The Senate amendment and the discussion surrounding it demonstrate an intent that city judges’ salaries not exceed those of mayors; the proviso was explained as a limiting measure to prevent judges from receiving salaries higher than the chief city executive.
Court’s Legal Analysis on Construction and Priority of Proviso
The Court applied conventional rules of statutory construction: a proviso is intended to qualify or limit the general language of a statute. Where there is an irreconcilable repugnancy between the principal provision and the proviso, the proviso—being the later expression of legislative intent within the same statutory section—controls and limits the broader language. Given the legislative history and the clear limiting language of the proviso, the Court concluded that the proviso qualified the earlier salary schedule and that Congress intended that the salary of a city judge should not exceed (and must be at least P100.00 less than) the salary of the city mayor.
Application of Law to the Facts
Because the city mayor of San Carlos was receiving an annual salary of P13,200.00 (P1,100.00 per month) and the proviso required the city judge’s salary to be at least P100.00 per month less, the Court held respondents could not be compelled to provide the petitioner with an annual salary of P18,000.00. The
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34024)
Citation, Court and Decision Date
- Reported at 172 Phil. 306, First Division; G.R. No. L-34024.
- Decision rendered April 05, 1978.
- Decision authored by Justice Fernandez.
- Justices Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Guerero concurred; Justice Teehankee (Chairman) concurred in the result.
Procedural Posture
- Original remedy sought: petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan at San Carlos City, Branch X.
- The appealed lower-court ruling had dismissed the petition for mandamus filed as Civil Case No. SCC-182.
- Petitioner filed the mandamus petition in January 1971; the appeal to the Supreme Court arose from dismissal of that petition by the Court of First Instance.
Parties and Official Capacities
- Petitioner: Isidro G. Arenas, identified as the incumbent City Judge of San Carlos City (Pangasinan).
- Respondents: City of San Carlos (Pangasinan); City Council of San Carlos City; named municipal officials—Juan C. Lomibao (City Mayor), Benjamin Posadas (City Vice-Mayor), Douglas D. Soriano (City Councilor), Basilio Bulatao (City Councilor), Catalina B. Cagampan (City Councilor), Eugenio Ramos (City Councilor), Francisco Cancino (City Councilor), Alfredo Vinluan (City Councilor), Marcelo Lapena (City Councilor), Leopoldo C. Tulagan (City Councilor), Toribio Paulino (City Treasurer); and the Honorable Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), Branch X.
- The municipal respondents were sued in their official capacities.
Material Facts Presented by Petitioner
- San Carlos City had been classified as a third class city from its creation in 1966 through the relevant period.
- Republic Act No. 5967 became effective on June 21, 1969 and, according to petitioner, provided that basic salary of city judges of second and third class cities shall be P18,000.00 per annum.
- At the time RA No. 5967 took effect, petitioner was receiving a monthly salary of P1,000.00, which amounted to P12,000.00 per annum.
- The P1,000 monthly comprised P350.00 from the national government and P650.00 from the city government.
- Petitioner alleged his salary was P500.00 per month below the statutory basic monthly salary for a city judge of a third class city under RA No. 5967.
- Petitioner calculated that, from June 21, 1969 until the filing of his mandamus petition on January 21, 1971, he was entitled to a total salary differential of P9,500.00 from the City of San Carlos.
- Petitioner alleged repeated requests to respondents to enact the necessary budget and pay the differential had been made but were refused without justification.
- Petitioner asserted he had no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy other than mandamus.
- Petitioner alleged engaging counsel and incurring attorney's fees of P2,000.00 as a consequence of respondents' refusal.
Respondents’ Admissions and Defenses (as pleaded)
- Respondents admitted and denied various allegations, denying entitlement where appropriate.
- Respondents invoked Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967, particularly the proviso: that the salary of a city judge shall be at least P100.00 per month less than that of the city mayor.
- Respondents asserted that, in San Carlos City, the city judge (petitioner) received P12,000.00 per annum while the city mayor received P13,200.00 per annum—exactly P100.00 a month more—so that the proviso was satisfied.
- Respondents contended payment of any salary difference under RA No. 5967 is subject to implementation by the respective city government, implying discretion by the city government whether to implement the payment of any difference.
- Respondents raised the city's financial difficulties, including a significant overdraft, as a basis for nonpayment and inability to pay any alleged difference.
- Respondents asserted that petitioner should pay his lawyer and that attorney’s fees should not be charged against them, stating they had not violated petitioner’s rights.
Statutory Provision Central to the Dispute (Section 7, RA No. 5967)
- Section 7 excerpted in the record provides, inter alia:
- For second and third class citi