Discano v. Gatmaytan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Damaso Discano and Florencio Valiente, formerly policemen of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, were removed from their positions in 1952. They subsequently initiated a mandamus proceeding to compel their reinstatement and payment of back salaries, which the lower court granted. 2. Procedural History: Following the favorable judgment in the initial mandamus case, the municipal council of Guimba passed resolutions approving the payment of the petitioners' back salaries and appropriating funds for this purpose in the 1956-1957 budget. Vouchers were issued, but the Municipal Treasurer, Felicisimo Gatmaytan, refused to pay, citing a lack of funds. Despite a court order to examine the municipality's finances, which revealed available funds, the treasurer's refusal persisted. A subsequent resolution by a different municipal council composition disallowed the inclusion of these salaries in the budget. The petitioners then filed a new mandamus action against the treasurer to compel payment. 3. The Petition: This case is an appeal from the lower court's decision ordering the Municipal Treasurer to pay the back salaries of the petitioners. The respondent-appellant argues that a judgment against the former mayor should not be considered a judgment against the municipality and that the treasurer cannot be compelled to pay salaries not provided for in a budget approved by ordinance. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if the treasurer's refusal to pay was justified in the absence of a formal appropriation ordinance, despite prior resolutions and a court order for reinstatement and back pay.
Issue(s)
Whether a judgment against a mayor for illegal dismissal is deemed a judgment against the municipality. Whether the Municipal Treasurer can be compelled by mandamus to pay back salaries without a budget or appropriation ordinance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the petition for mandamus. It held that the Municipal Treasurer was justified in refusing payment without a valid appropriation ordinance and that mandamus would not lie.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court noted that in several previous cases involving unlawful dismissal of public officers, the Supreme Court directed the payment of back salaries even when the municipality or city was not formally impleaded as a party. The Court reasoned that subordinating substance to form would be detrimental to justice and equity, and that the interest of the municipality is presumed to be protected by the officers named as respondents. Therefore, the requirement of joinder of parties was substantially complied with in this case, as the original mandamus proceeding was against the Mayor, and the municipality is presumed to have contested the claim. On the second issue: The Court held that the Municipal Treasurer was justified in refusing to pay the back salaries without a valid appropriation ordinance. While the municipal council passed resolutions assuming responsibility and authorizing the inclusion of the amount in the budget, these resolutions were considered mere proposals or expressions of intent, not legislative enactments. A resolution, unlike an ordinance, does not appropriate funds. The Revised Administrative Code mandates that disbursement of municipal funds must be made pursuant to the budget, and the Constitution prohibits payment from the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Furthermore, the municipal council subsequently disallowed the inclusion of the amount in the budget. Therefore, there was no clear legal duty on the part of the Municipal Treasurer to honor the vouchers without a proper appropriation ordinance, and thus, mandamus would not lie.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a municipal treasurer to pay back salaries without a valid appropriation ordinance providing for the funds, as such payment is not a ministerial duty in the absence of a budget.