Hon. Expedito B. Pilar vs Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasi

Factual Background

Petitioner was elected vice mayor of Dasol, Pangasinan, in the 1980 local elections, together with Hon. Lodovico Espinosa as municipal mayor and the initial set of Sangguniang Bayan members. All assumed office on March 1, 1980. Later, additional members joined the Sangguniang Bayan.

On March 4, 1980, the Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1, increasing the salaries of the mayor and municipal treasurer to P18,636.00 and P16,044.00 per annum, respectively. The resolution did not provide for an increase in the vice mayor’s salary, even though the vice mayor position was entitled to an annual salary of P16,044.00, as reflected in Circular No. 9-A.

Petitioner protested and sought compliance through letters to the proper authorities. Provincial and national officials endorsed compliance with Circular No. 9-A by providing the revised rate. The record also showed that the Executive Secretary of the Commission advised the mayor that the Municipality should pay the vice mayor the salary due him equivalent to that of the municipal treasurer per Circular No. 15.

On December 12, 1980, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted a resolution appropriating P500.00 per month as petitioner’s salary. The amount was increased to P774.00 per month in December 1981.

On October 26, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted another resolution appropriating P15,144.00 as payment of petitioner’s unpaid salaries from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982. The mayor vetoed this resolution, and petitioner then filed the present petition for mandamus on February 16, 1983.

Respondents’ Comment and Petitioner’s Replies

Respondents argued first that the petition was premature because petitioner allegedly failed to exhaust administrative remedies and should have lodged his complaint with the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development. Second, respondents asserted that the petition raised questions of fact—particularly whether municipal funds were available—which, they claimed, removed the matter from the Supreme Court’s cognizance. Third, respondents contended that the controversy had become moot and academic because on April 20, 1983, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted an appropriation ordinance appropriating P29,985.00 for salary differentials under Supplemental Budget No. 3 for Calendar Year 1983.

Petitioner replied that exhaustion of administrative remedies did not bar the petition because mandamus provided the adequate and speedy remedy for the legal issue—whether the appropriation of the vice mayor’s salary was a ministerial act or a discretionary act. He also maintained that the only remaining factual issue concerned damages, not the salary entitlement itself, and that the existence of municipal funds was no longer in dispute due to a certification by the municipal treasurer. Petitioner further argued that the case was not moot because there was no assurance that enactment of an appropriation resolution would translate into actual payment.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

On June 1, 1983, the Court gave due course to the petition and required memoranda. At the time petitioner submitted his memorandum, he admitted that he had already been fully paid of his salaries as provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and implemented by Circular No. 9-A.

The Court thus treated the principal claim for salary as moot and academic. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that petitioner was still entitled to damages and attorney’s fees, because the record showed that petitioner had been compelled to litigate to obtain a salary that was unduly denied him for three (3) years and that the mayor acted with gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy a plainly valid, just, and demandable claim under Article 2208 (2) and (5) of the New Civil Code.

The Parties’ Key Issues

The dispute required the Court to address whether mandamus would lie to compel performance of the duty to provide the legally mandated salary rate for a vice mayor, and whether, despite subsequent payment and the enactment of later appropriations, petitioner could still recover damages and attorney’s fees due to wrongful refusal or neglect in the payment of salary.

Respondents advanced that the matter turned on facts such as municipal fund availability and asserted prematurity under administrative exhaustion. Petitioner insisted that the issue was legal in nature and that the existence of funds had already been established, leaving only the consequences of delayed or denied payment—damages.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court held that petitioner was entitled to damages even though his salary claim had been satisfied by the time of submission. It emphasized that petitioner had forced litigation to claim a salary that had been legally mandated. It further found that the mayor’s refusal and delay were not justified and were attended by gross and evident bad faith, warranting damages under Article 2208.

As to responsibility, the Court ruled that respondent Mayor Lodovico Espinosa alone should be held liable and responsible for petitioner’s “miserable plight.” It focused on the mayor’s act of vetoing, without just cause, the Sangguniang Bayan resolution appropriating P15,144.00 for petitioner’s unpaid salaries covering January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982. The Court rejected respondents’ framing that vetoing necessarily involved permissible discretion. It held that the mayor exceeded authority in an arbitrary manner because sufficient municipal funds existed to pay the vice mayor’s salary.

The Court also treated the mayor’s refusal, neglect, or omission to comply with directives from the Provincial Budget Officer and the Director of the Bureau of Local Government as reckless and oppressive. On that basis, the Court imposed exemplary or corrective damages “by way of example or correction for the public good,” and ruled that the mayor was personally liable for such damages.

The Court likewise awarded actual damages and litigation costs, reduced from P13,643.50 to P5,000.00. For moral damages, the Court found entitlement to compensation for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injuries petitioner suffered, and fixed the moral damages at P5,000.00. Finally, it granted attorney’s fees in the amount of P5,000.00.

Disposition and Allocation of Liability

The Court declared the petition moot and academic in view of petitioner’s admission that he had been fully paid of his salary. Nevertheless, it ordered the mayor to pay petitioner the fo

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Hon. Expedito B. Pilar filed an original action for mandamus to compel the Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan and the municipal treasurer to pay his salary due as Vice Mayor.
Respondents included the Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, its municipal mayor and presiding officer Hon. Lodovico Espinosa, its members, and Mr. Victoriano Buaga, the municipal treasurer.
Petitioner also sought actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees arising from the refusal or neglect to pay his lawful salary.
The Court gave due course to the petition and required memoranda after respondents raised threshold objections to the petition.
After petitioner admitted that his salaries had been fully paid by the time he submitted his memorandum, the Court treated the case as moot and academic but still adjudicated damages and attorney’s fees.
The decision included a concurrence by Aquino, J. (Acting Chairman) with a separate view on the adequacy of the moral and exemplary awards.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner was elected Vice Mayor of Dasol, Pangasinan in the 1980 local elections and assumed office on March 1, 1980.
The elected Municipal Mayor was Lodovico Espinosa, and petitioner served concurrently with the listed Sangguniang Bayan members during petitioner’s tenure.
The Sangguniang Bayan later included additional members, namely Linda Bustria, Abraham Balaoing, and Ceferino Quinitio.
On March 4, 1980, the Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1 increasing the salaries of the mayor and municipal treasurer but did not include a salary increase for the Vice Mayor despite the entitlement reflected in Circular No. 9-A.
Petitioner repeatedly complained through letters and sought compliance with Circular 9-A, and provincial and national officials endorsed compliance.
Petitioner alleged that the mayor was advised that the municipality should pay the Vice Mayor the salary due him equivalent to that of the Municipal Treasurer under Circular No. 15.
On December 12, 1980, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted a resolution appropriating P500.00 per month as petitioner’s salary.
The monthly appropriation for petitioner was increased to P774.00 per month in December 1981.
On October 26, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted a resolution appropriating P15,144.00 as payment of petitioner’s unpaid salaries from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982.
Respondent mayor vetoed the October 26, 1982 resolution, prompting petitioner to file the mandamus petition on February 16, 1983.
Respondents asserted that subsequent legislative action in April 1983 appropriated P29,985.00 for salary differentials under Supplemental Budget No. 3, Gen. Fund, C.Y. 1983.
Petitioner ultimately admitted during the proceedings that he had already been fully paid as of the submission of his memorandum, which the Court treated as a change in the case’s live controversy.

Statutory and Rule Framework

The salary entitlement relied on Batas Pambansa Big. 51 as implemented by Circular No. 9-A of the Joint Commission on Local Government and Personnel Administration.
The Court applied Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court to allow damages in a mandamus proceeding due to a respondent’s wrongful act.
The Court considered Article 2208 of the New Civil Code in relation to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
The Court treated the award of moral damages as anchored on Article 2208 (2) and (5), New Civil Code.
The Aquino concurrence cited Article 27 of the Civil Code on liability of public servants or employees for refusal or neglect without just cause to perform official duty.
The Aquino concurrence also cited Article 2219(10) of the Civil Code to support moral damages in an action under Article 27.
The Court’s framework also reflected the remedy’s legal nature as mandamus to enforce a plainly valid, just, and demandable salary claim.

Issues Raised

The respondents contended that the mandamus petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, asserting that petitioner should have lodged his complaint first with the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development.
Respondents argued that the case involved questions of fact because the right to salary allegedly depended on the availability of municipal funds, which they claimed was not cognizable by the Supreme Court.
Respondents claimed the petition became moot and academic because later appropriation in April 1983 provided funds for salary differentials.
Petitioner argued that mandamus was the adequate and speedy remedy and that the decisive issu