Case Summary (G.R. No. 63216)
Factual Background
Petitioner was elected Vice-Mayor of Dasol in the 1980 local elections and assumed office on March 1, 1980 together with the Municipal Mayor and initially eight members of the Sangguniang Bayan, with three additional members later joining. On March 4, 1980 the Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1 increasing the salaries of the Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer but omitted any increase for the Vice-Mayor despite the classification and salary schedule reflected in Circular No. 9-A, which prescribed the Vice-Mayor’s salary equivalent to that of the Municipal Treasurer. Petitioner repeatedly protested the omission and communicated with municipal, provincial and national authorities; the Executive Secretary of the Joint Commission advised the Mayor that the municipality should pay the Vice-Mayor the salary prescribed by the circular.
Events Leading to Litigation
Despite administrative endorsements and directives, the Sangguniang Bayan first appropriated P500.00 per month for petitioner’s salary on December 12, 1980, and later increased the monthly appropriation to P774.00 in December 1981. On October 26, 1982 the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution appropriating P15,144.00 as payment of unpaid salaries of the petitioner for January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, but the respondent Mayor vetoed that resolution. Petitioner then filed an original action for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court on February 16, 1983, seeking an order compelling payment of his lawful salary as provided by the national law and circular, and damages, including attorney’s fees.
Procedural History and Parties’ Pleadings
Respondents filed a comment asserting three principal defenses: that the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and should have been brought first before the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development; that the petition raised factual questions, particularly the availability of municipal funds, which traditionally are not cognizable by the Supreme Court; and that the controversy had become moot and academic because the Sangguniang Bayan enacted an appropriation ordinance on April 20, 1983 that purportedly appropriated P29,985.00 for salary differentials. Petitioner replied that administrative remedies were inadequate because the issue presented a legal question—whether appropriation of the Vice-Mayor’s salary was a ministerial duty—and that the municipal treasurer had certified the availability of funds so that fund availability was no longer a factual impediment; petitioner further argued that the matter was not moot because appropriation did not guarantee payment.
Court’s Consideration and Admission of Payment
The Court gave due course to the petition on June 1, 1983 and required memoranda. Petitioner later admitted in his memorandum that he had been fully paid the salaries due under Batas Pambansa Big, 51 and Circular No. 9-A at the time of submission. The Court therefore held that the primary claim for unpaid salaries had become moot and academic because petitioner’s salary claim had been satisfied.
Liability for Damages and the Court’s Rationale
Although the monetary claim for unpaid salaries had been resolved, the Court found that petitioner was nevertheless entitled to damages and attorney’s fees because the facts established that he had been unduly denied his lawful salary for three years and had been compelled to litigate to obtain what was plainly his. The Court determined that the Mayor acted in gross and evident bad faith by vetoing the Sangguniang Bayan’s appropriation on October 26, 1982 without just cause, despite certifications and directives from the Municipal Treasurer, the Provincial Budget Officer, and the Director of the Bureau of Local Government that funds were available and that the prescribed salary rate should be paid. The Court recognized that the act of vetoing involves discretion but concluded that respondent Mayor exceeded his authority in an arbitrary manner and thereby transgressed his duty.
Legal Basis for Damages and Characterization of the Mayor’s Conduct
The Court grounded its award of damages on Article 2208, (2) and (5), New Civil Code, treating the Mayor’s refusal, neglect or omission to comply with directives and to appropriate funds as reckless and oppressive conduct warranting exemplary or corrective damages. The Court held that the Mayor’s conduct constituted bad faith and a wrongful act that justified an award of actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of the petitioner.
Monetary Awards and Personal Liability
The Court reduced petitioner’s claims for litigation costs from P13,643.50 to P5,000.00 and awarded moral damages in the amount of P5,000.00 for mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, m
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 63216)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Hon. Expedito B. Pilar filed an original action for the writ of mandamus to compel payment of his salary and for damages and attorney's fees.
- The Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan and Mr. Victoriano Buaga, Municipal Treasurer, were named as respondents along with municipal officials led by Hon. Lodovico Espinosa.
- The petition sought compliance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 as implemented by Circular No. 9-A of the Joint Commission on Local Government and Personnel Administration and sought actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
- The petition was filed on February 16, 1983 and the Court gave due course and required memoranda on June 1, 1983.
- Petitioner admitted in his memorandum that he had been fully paid the salary due him before decision, which rendered the primary claim moot and academic.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner was elected Vice-Mayor of Dasol in the 1980 local elections and assumed office on March 1, 1980.
- The Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1 on March 4, 1980 increasing the salaries of the Mayor and Municipal Treasurer but omitting any increase for the Vice-Mayor despite a prescribed salary equal to the Municipal Treasurer under Circular No. 9-A.
- Petitioner repeatedly complained in writing and received endorsements from provincial and national officials urging compliance with Circular No. 9-A and an Executive Secretary's letter advising payment equivalent to the Municipal Treasurer under Circular No. 15.
- The Sangguniang Bayan appropriated P500.00 per month for the Vice-Mayor on December 12, 1980 and increased that appropriation to P774.00 per month in December, 1981.
- On October 26, 1982 the Sangguniang Bayan enacted a resolution appropriating P15,144.00 for petitioner's unpaid salaries from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, which the Municipal Mayor, Hon. Lodovico Espinosa, vetoed.
Procedural History
- Petitioner sought the writ of mandamus to compel payment and to recover damages after the mayor's veto and alleged refusals to appropriate funds.
- Respondents filed a comment asserting prematurity for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, factual nature of the dispute concerning availability of municipal funds, and mootness due to a later appropriation ordinance enacted April 20, 1983.
- Petitioner replied asserting that administrative remedies were inadequate and that the central question whether appropriation of the Vice-Mayor's salary is discretionary or ministerial was a legal issue.
- The Court proceeded to adjudicate despite subsequent payment to petitioner and considered damages claims separately.
Issues Presented
- Whether the refusal or veto by the Municipal Mayor of an appropriation for the Vice-Mayor's salary constituted a wrongful denial of a plainly demandable and legal entitlement under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and Circular No. 9-A.
- Whether the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and whether the dispute involved primarily factual issues regarding availability of municipal funds.
- Whether the action became moot and academic upon subsequent appropriation and partial or full payment.