Case Summary (G.R. No. 188448)
Relevant Dates and Instruments
July–August 2005: Bandrang’s complaints and Sangguniang Bayan referrals. Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 (and later Resolutions No. 017-2006 and No. 135-2007) dealt with enforcement against subleasing and authorized the mayor to enforce the pertinent lease provisions (Items No. 9 and No. 11). RTC Resolution granting mandamus dated January 28, 2008; Court of Appeals Decision dated December 16, 2008; petition to the Supreme Court resolved January 11, 2017.
Factual Background
Bandrang alleged that she had leased certain public market stalls from the municipal government, that petitioners unlawfully subleased those stalls and ousted her, and that she repeatedly informed and sought action from Mayor Dickson and the Sangguniang Bayan. The Sangguniang endorsed her letters and passed Resolution No. 183-2004 authorizing the mayor to enforce the contractual provisions prohibiting subleasing and allowing termination for violations, but the mayor did not act on the complaint. Bandrang filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the mayor to cancel the lease and to lease the stalls anew.
Parties’ Positions
Bandrang sought enforcement of lease provisions against subleasing and termination for delinquent rentals. Mayor Dickson asserted he had acted properly by referring the matter to the Sangguniang and defended his inaction as discretionary; he raised the defense of pari delicto, contending Bandrang herself was implicated. Petitioners denied being lessees of the stalls (claiming Clarita was the municipal lessee) and argued that their contract with the municipality was a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement and not a lease subject to the Sangguniang resolution; they also asserted estoppel based on the municipality’s subsequent acceptance of rental payments.
RTC Ruling and Basis
The RTC granted the writ of mandamus, concluding the municipal contract with petitioners was a lease (relying on a certification by a former mayor) and that petitioners had violated Item No. 9 (absolute prohibition on subleasing) and Item No. 11 (termination for nonpayment or other violations). The RTC considered the municipality’s secondary evidence sufficient and treated petitioners’ exhibition of receipts as admission of delinquency. The RTC held that the mayor’s failure to enforce the Sangguniang resolutions and implement termination was an unlawful neglect of duty, making mandamus proper.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It agreed that the contract was a lease and that Resolution No. 183-2004 applied. On mandamus, the CA reasoned that while mandamus generally compels only ministerial acts, it may be used to compel an official to act where a discretionary power has been unlawfully refused, without dictating how the discretion should be exercised. The CA found the Sangguniang had delegated authority to the mayor to determine which stallholders violated lease terms; the mayor’s refusal to exercise that delegated discretion made him amenable to mandamus to compel action.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 applied to petitioners despite the absence of an exhibited written lease contract; and 2) whether the resolution could be enforced by persons other than the specifically named mayor.
Supreme Court Finding on the Nature of the Contract
The Supreme Court found preponderant evidence that the municipal contract with the Laygos (through Clarita) was a lease. Although neither party produced the original written contract, the Court accepted secondary evidence—certifications from a former mayor and the Municipal Planning and Development Office—showing that after a 1992 fire the stalls were reconstructed with Clarita’s funds, her rental payments were suspended during recovery, construction was supervised, and the stalls were ultimately occupied under a lease. The municipal treasurer’s notice of delinquency and the municipality’s acceptance of rental payments were inconsistent with a continuing BOT arrangement and supported the conclusion that the relationship was a lease. The Court also treated the Sangguniang resolutions as presumptively regular and accorded them due weight absent a showing of grave abuse.
Supreme Court Analysis on Mandamus and Ministerial vs. Discretionary Duties
The Supreme Court reiterated the governing principle that a writ of mandamus ordinarily compels performance of a ministerial duty — a duty imposed by law that admits no discretion in its performance. By contrast, duties that require the official to exercise judgment are discretionary and not ordinarily subject to mandamus. The Court analyzed Items No. 9 and No. 11 of the lease: Item No. 9 prohibits subleasing; Item No. 11 provides that the lessor "may" declare the lease terminated for nonpayment or other violations and repossess the premises. The permissive term "may" signified that termination is discretionary rather than mandatory. The Court emphasized that municipal action to grant or revoke the privilege of operating a market stall is a delegated exercise of the police power under the Local Government Code (general welfare), and therefore inherently discretionary. Accordingly, mandamus could not be used to direct the mayor to cancel leases and reassign stalls in a particular manner.
Exceptions to the Rule and Their Inapplicability
Although mandamus may issue to compel action involving discretion when there is unlawful refusal to act, this remedy is limited and only applies where there is abuse, excess, or a clear legal duty to perform; even then, mandamus cannot direct how discretion is to be exercised. The Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188448)
Facts
- In July 2005, Aniza Bandrang sent two letter-complaints to then Municipal Mayor Santiago O. Dickson and the Sangguniang Bayan of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, informing them that she had been illegally subleased out of Public Market Stalls Nos. 77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B, which the petitioners had leased from the Municipal Government.
- Bandrang alleged that petitioners told her to vacate the stalls and that the petitioners subleased the stalls to another; she offered to testify and requested priority to re-lease the stalls she vacated.
- In August 2005 the Sangguniang Bayan endorsed Bandrang’s letter and a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004 to Mayor Dickson for appropriate action, noting that Resolution No. 183-2004 authorized the mayor to enforce the provision against subleasing of market stalls.
- Mayor Dickson replied that the stalls were constructed under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme, which he said gave petitioners the right to keep their stalls until the BOT agreement was satisfied; he asked whether the BOT scheme contained sanctions similar to Item No. 9 (prohibition on subleasing) in the lease contract.
- Bandrang wrote again asking for cancellation of the lease contract between the Municipality and petitioners for violating the prohibition on subleasing, recommending that the stalls be re-bid and re-leased to successful bidders, because Mayor Dickson had not acted on prior referrals.
- The Sangguniang Bayan again referred Bandrang’s letter with Resolution No. 183-2004 to Mayor Dickson, stating it had already empowered him to cancel lease contracts pursuant to the resolution’s provisions.
- Mayor Dickson did not act on the referrals, prompting Bandrang to file a Petition for Mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya; she later amended the petition to implead petitioners Rodolfo Laygo and Willie Laygo.
- Bandrang alleged Mayor Dickson unlawfully neglected his duty to enforce the lease provisions against subleasing and sought an order directing cancellation of the lease between the Municipality and petitioners over Stalls 77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B and for the stalls to be leased to interested persons.
- Mayor Dickson pleaded defenses: pari delicto (arguing Bandrang herself was guilty in leasing the stalls), that he acted in accordance with law by referring the matter to the Sangguniang, that Bandrang lacked cause of action and was not a real party in interest, and that the relief sought was discretionary.
- During pre-trial and hearings, Mayor Dickson produced a Sangguniang resolution directing stall owners to build their own stalls after a fire; petitioners denied being lessees of the stalls (asserting their mother, Clarita Laygo, was the lessee under a BOT scheme) and maintained that any contract between Clarita and the Municipality was a BOT agreement and not a lease contract, therefore Resolution No. 183-2004 would not apply.
- Petitioners further contended that, even if subleasing occurred, the alleged sublease had ended and the Municipality’s subsequent receipt of payments ratified their contract.
- On July 23, 2007, the RTC substituted Hon. Philip A. Dacayo as respondent in place of Mayor Dickson.
- Bandrang filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 8, 2008, asserting no genuine issues of fact existed, citing reiterated Sangguniang resolutions (Nos. 017-2006 and 135-2007) implementing Resolution No. 183-2004, and alleging an additional violation — nonpayment of stall rental fees — citing a Municipal Ordinance provision that three months’ nonpayment causes automatic cancellation of the lease.
Procedural History
- Bandrang filed a Petition for Mandamus in the RTC; the petition was amended to implead petitioners.
- The RTC issued a Resolution dated January 28, 2008 granting the petition and ordering a writ of mandamus directing the municipal mayor to implement Items No. 9 and 11 of the lease contract and to enforce Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions Nos. 183-2004 and 135-2007.
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103922; Mayor Dacayo filed a manifestation expressing willingness to implement the resolutions.
- On December 16, 2008, the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC resolution, holding the contract between petitioners and the Municipal Government to be a lease contract and that mandamus was proper to compel the mayor to act when he refused to exercise delegated discretion.
- A Motion for Reconsideration by Willie Laygo dated January 20, 2009 was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated June 19, 2009.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 188448).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 may be applied against petitioners despite the asserted absence of a contract of lease between them and the Municipal Government of Solano.
- Whether Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 can be enforced by any official other than Mayor Santiago O. Dickson, given the resolution’s explicit reference to Mayor Dickson and his subsequent displacement from office.
Parties’ Positions and Key Arguments
- Bandrang:
- Alleged petitioners violated the absolute prohibition against subleasing (Item No. 9) and failed to pay rentals (citing Municipal Ordinance No. 164, Section 7B.06(a) regarding cancellation after three months’ nonpayment).
- Emphasized the Sangguniang’s repeated resolutions (183-2004, 017-2006, 135-2007) and sought mandamus to compel mayoral enforcement, lease cancellation, and re-leasing of stalls.
- Petitioners:
- Denied being lessees of the stalls in their own right, asserting Clarita Laygo (their mother) was the lessee under a BOT scheme and that any contract was a BOT agreement not a lease; therefore Resolution No. 183-2004 (which quoted Items No. 9 and 11 of the lease contract) did not apply.
- Argued the Municipality’s acceptance of subsequent payments estopped it from canceling the contract.
- Maintained the prohibition on subleasing would not apply because the contract was a BOT agreement, and Resolution No. 183-2004 only covered lease contracts.
- Mayor Dickson / Municipal Government:
- Argued the stalls were under a BOT scheme, and he referred the matter to the Sangguniang; later, the Municipal Government (via Provincial Legal Officer) pointed to Resolution No. 135-2007 authorizing then Mayor Dacayo to implement the No. 9 and No. 11 provisions.
- Presented certifications and evidence indicating the construction, supervision, and eventual re-occupation of stalls and notices of delinquency (Municipal Treasurer’s Notice dated August 21, 2007).
RTC Findings and Rationale
- The RTC granted the petition for mandamus (Resolution dated January 28, 2