Perez v. City Mayor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the alleged failure of the City of Cabanatuan to appropriate the full statutory contribution required for the support of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital. Under Republic Act No. 1939, known as the Hospital Financing Law, cities are mandated to contribute at least 7% of their annual general income to government hospitals. Procedural History: The Chief of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, seeking to compel the City Mayor, Municipal Board, and City Treasurer of Cabanatuan to appropriate the sum of P24,983.12. This amount represented the alleged deficiency in the city's contribution for the fiscal year 1957-58. The lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not the real party in interest. The petitioner subsequently appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner, as Chief of the Provincial Hospital, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to release the outstanding P24,983.12, arguing that Cabanatuan City's income for the 1957-58 fiscal year necessitated a contribution of P34,983.12 under the Hospital Financing Law, of which only P10,000.00 had been appropriated. The appeal to the Supreme Court was based on the petitioner's assertion of his right to bring the action for mandamus, challenging the lower court's finding that he lacked standing.
Issue(s)
Is the Chief of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital the real party in interest authorized to bring an action for mandamus to compel the City of Cabanatuan to appropriate funds under the Hospital Financing Law? Was the action for mandamus prematurely filed due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the petitioner was not the proper party to initiate the action and that the petition was premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on whether the Chief of Hospital is the real party in interest, as the petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, the Court implied that the Secretary of Health, not the Chief of Hospital, is the proper official to pursue such actions. Section 7 of the Hospital Financing Law vests supervision and control over government hospitals in the Secretary of Health, empowering him to promulgate rules and regulations. Department of Health Circular No. 262, Section 3(c), specifically outlines the procedure for non-compliance, stating that the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Health and the Auditor General, shall order the withholding of Internal Revenue allotments. This mechanism points to specific officials and procedures, indicating that the Chief of Hospital is not designated to initiate judicial actions for such purposes. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the action for mandamus was prematurely filed because the petitioner failed to exhaust appropriate administrative remedies. Section 3(c) of Department of Health Circular No. 262 clearly specifies that in cases where a local government unit fails to provide its obligations under the Hospital Financing Law, the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Health and the Auditor General, is the official who may pursue the course of withholding funds from Internal Revenue allotments. The Court noted that there is no mention that the chief of a provincial hospital may bring any action against the concerned local government unit. The most the petitioner could do was report the failure to his superior official, which the record does not show he did. Therefore, as there was a plain, speedy, and adequate administrative remedy available that the petitioner failed to avail himself of, recourse to the courts was premature, in line with established jurisprudence such as Peralta vs. Salcedo, Panti vs. The Provincial Board of Catanduanes, Booc vs. Osmeña, Jr., and De la Torre vs. Trinidad.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the appropriation of funds for a provincial hospital is premature if the petitioner has not first exhausted available administrative remedies, such as reporting the failure to the superior official designated by law.