Torres v. Municipal Council
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel G. Torres, a civil service eligible, was appointed patrolman on November 15, 1955, to one of six additional positions created by Municipal Ordinance No. 33 of Malalag, Davao, for the fiscal year 1955-1956. This ordinance appropriated P22,140.00 for the police force, an increase from the previous year's P14,760.00. The ordinance was sent to the Department of Finance, which referred it to the Provincial Treasurer. The Provincial Treasurer, citing an outstanding municipal obligation of P6,892.20, recommended that the creation of the additional positions be held in abeyance. Procedural History: On January 9, 1956, the new Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 13, abolishing the six patrolman positions, including Torres', citing the lack of approval from the Secretary of Finance and the outstanding obligation. The new Mayor implemented this resolution on January 14, 1956, officially separating Torres from the service. Later, on June 31, 1956, the Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 76, increasing the police force by five positions, stating the municipality could now afford it after paying its obligation. Torres again sought reinstatement but was denied. On July 24, 1956, Torres filed a petition for mandamus. The Petition: Petitioner Manuel G. Torres appealed the dismissal of his petition for mandamus by the Court of First Instance of Davao. He sought reinstatement as patrolman, arguing that his appointment was valid. The core of his appeal to the Supreme Court was that the Municipal Ordinance No. 33, which created his position, was valid and effective, and that his dismissal was illegal. He also contended that his appointment was made by the Mayor and implicitly had the consent of the Municipal Council.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1955, of the Municipality of Malalag, Davao, was valid and effective at the time of petitioner Torres' appointment. Whether petitioner Torres was legally appointed to the position of patrolman. Whether the abolition of the six patrolman positions was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that Municipal Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1955, was not valid and effective at the time of Torres' appointment because it had not received the necessary approval from the Secretary of Finance. Consequently, the positions created by the ordinance did not legally exist, and Torres' appointment was invalid. The Court also noted that Torres failed to prove his appointment was made with the consent of the Municipal Council, as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that Municipal Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1955, required the approval of the Secretary of Finance to be valid and effective. This requirement stems from Section 2296 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1062, which mandates such approval if the aggregate amount appropriated exceeds estimated receipts or if full provisions are not made for all statutory and contractual obligations. The Court agreed with the trial court that the ordinance, by failing to adequately address the municipality's outstanding obligations, effectively resulted in an unbalanced budget, thus necessitating the Secretary of Finance's approval. Department of Finance Circular No. 10, dated July 31, 1954, which predated the ordinance, clearly stipulated that budgets would not take effect if these conditions were not met, serving as a contemporaneous interpretation of the law. Therefore, without the Secretary of Finance's approval, the ordinance was not in full force and effect. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Torres was not legally appointed to the position of patrolman. This was primarily because the position itself did not legally exist due to the lack of approval of Municipal Ordinance No. 33 by the Secretary of Finance. Furthermore, even if the ordinance were valid, the Court noted that Torres failed to present evidence that his appointment by the Mayor had the required consent of the majority of the Municipal Council, as mandated by Section 2159 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court emphasized that in a mandamus case, the petitioner must establish a clear legal right, which could not be based on mere presumption. The copy of his appointment did not show the necessary approvals. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to definitively rule on the validity of Resolution No. 13, which abolished the six patrolman positions. The reasoning was that if the appropriation ordinance creating these positions was invalid from the outset due to lack of approval, then the positions themselves never legally existed. Consequently, there was nothing to abolish. The Court concluded that since the positions did not legally exist, Torres could not have been legally dismissed from a non-existent position, and therefore, there was no basis for his reinstatement through a writ of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
An appropriation ordinance enacted by a municipal council is effective only upon approval by the Secretary of Finance if the aggregate amount appropriated exceeds the estimated receipts, or if it fails to make full provisions for all statutory and contractual obligations of the municipality. Consequently, positions created under an ordinance that has not obtained the necessary approval are deemed non-existent, rendering any appointments to such positions invalid. Furthermore, appointments to non-elective municipal positions by the mayor require the consent of the majority of the municipal council.