Grapilon v. Municipal Council of Carigara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of November 8, 1955, Jose Aguilar and Herculano Grapilon were elected Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively, of Carigara, Leyte. On March 6, 1957, Mayor Aguilar left for Manila on official business, without designating anyone as acting mayor. The Vice-Mayor, Herculano Grapilon, inquired from the municipal secretary and was informed that the mayor had left on official business and no one was designated as acting mayor. Grapilon then declared that he was assuming office as acting municipal mayor effective that day, pursuant to Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code. He also notified the chief of police and the provincial governor. The provincial governor, in a letter dated March 7, 1957, advised Grapilon that in the absence of the municipal mayor for official purposes, the mayor may not leave the office to the vice-mayor, and there shall not be an acting mayor. Procedural History: On March 11, 1957, Grapilon filed a petition for mandamus with the lower court, alleging that the municipal council, municipal secretary, and chief of police refused to recognize him as acting mayor and excluded him from the office. He prayed for recognition of his authority, access to the office, and for the respondents to perform their duties. He also claimed damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The respondents (Municipal Council, Municipal Secretary, and Chief of Police) filed an answer, arguing that the municipal council had no juridical personality, Grapilon was not designated acting mayor, and mandamus was not the proper remedy. The lower court rendered a decision declaring the Vice-Mayor entitled to assume and discharge the office of Municipal Mayor in accordance with Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code in the absence of the mayor without designation, and granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the respondents to recognize Grapilon's authority as acting mayor and to pay costs, but denied moral damages and other expenses. The Petition: The respondents appealed the decision, arguing that mandamus was not the proper remedy, that Grapilon was not entitled to assume the office of municipal mayor under Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code, and that the lower court erred in not awarding damages sought in their counterclaim.
Issue(s)
Whether the Vice-Mayor was entitled to assume the office of Acting Municipal Mayor when the Municipal Mayor was absent on official business. Whether mandamus was the proper remedy for the Vice-Mayor. Whether the respondents were liable for damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court insofar as it granted the writ of mandamus, and affirmed the decision insofar as it dismissed the counterclaim of the appellants. The Court held that the Vice-Mayor was not entitled to assume the office of Acting Municipal Mayor under the circumstances, and thus, the writ of mandamus was improperly granted. The claim for damages by the appellants was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of the Vice-Mayor Assuming Office: The Court held that the "absence" mentioned in Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes the vice-mayor to act as mayor, should be construed as an absence that disables the mayor from exercising the powers and prerogatives of his office. In this case, Mayor Aguilar was in Manila precisely in his capacity as mayor, transacting official business for the municipality. Although physically absent, he was still exercising the powers of his office and was entitled to his salary. Therefore, his absence was not an "effective absence" that would warrant the vice-mayor's assumption of office. The Court cited the principle of ejusdem generis and American jurisprudence which construes "absence" to mean not merely physical absence but absence that prevents the mayor from the active performance of duties. The Court also noted that there was no evidence of any occasion demanding the immediate exercise of the mayor's powers during Aguilar's absence. On the Propriety of Mandamus: While the Court did not explicitly rule on the propriety of mandamus as a remedy, its reversal of the lower court's decision granting the writ implies that it was not the appropriate remedy given the circumstances. The core of the issue was the entitlement to the office, which the Court found lacking. Therefore, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, which compels the performance of a ministerial duty or the recognition of a clear legal right, was not warranted. On the Claim for Damages: The Court dismissed the appellants' claim for damages, attorney's fees, and costs. It found no evidence of malicious or bad faith action by the appellee in filing the suit for mandamus. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence on record to prove the damages claimed by the appellants. The dismissal of the counterclaim was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The absence of a municipal mayor on official business, during which the mayor continues to exercise the powers and prerogatives of the office, does not constitute an 'effective absence' that would authorize the vice-mayor to assume the office of acting mayor under Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code.