Sia v. Cuneta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, appointed as members of the Board of Tax Appeals of Pasay City, sought to compel the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Municipal Board of Pasay City to provide them with necessary office space, supplies, equipment, and to approve appropriations for their salaries and sundry expenses. They also claimed damages for the alleged failure of respondents to provide these necessities. Procedural History: Petitioners' requests were denied by the respondents. Their case was initially brought to the attention of the President of the Philippines, who endorsed it to the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance referred it to the city treasurer, who, finding himself without the power to act, transmitted the matter to the municipal board through the mayor. Despite the endorsement from the President, no favorable action was taken, leading to the filing of the present action. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus, praying that respondents be compelled to provide the necessary office space, supplies, and equipment, and to approve the appropriation for the salaries and sundry expenses of the Board of Tax Appeals. In the alternative, they sought adequate damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents have a ministerial duty to provide the petitioners with office space, supplies, and equipment, and to approve the necessary appropriation for the Board of Tax Appeals. Whether the petitioners' claim for damages is liquidated and certain, such that mandamus would lie.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. It held that the respondents' duty to provide the requested items and appropriations involved the exercise of discretion and was not purely ministerial. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners' claim for damages was neither liquidated nor certain, as required for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to lie.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the respondents' duty to provide office space, supplies, equipment, and appropriations for the Board of Tax Appeals was not purely ministerial. While Section 16(b) of Republic Act No. 183 mandates the Municipal Board to provide for city expenses, and Section 40 of the same Act, as amended, recognizes the Board of Tax Appeals as a city department whose appropriation should be provided, the Court emphasized that before a demand for compliance can be legally enforced through mandamus, the right to such demand must be clear and the claim must be liquidated and certain. The Court cited 34 Am. Jur., p. 943, stating that where a board or officer must examine a claim before allowing it, or where the compensation is not fixed by law, mandamus will not lie. Moreover, the Court found a "cloud of doubt" regarding the Board of Tax Appeals' power to employ personnel beyond a secretary, as Section 40 of Republic Act No. 183, as amended by Republic Act No. 3275, specifically grants the power to appoint only a secretary, with the concurrence of a majority of its members, and in accordance with Civil Service Law and Regulations. The appointment of a laborer and steno-typist was deemed beyond the Board's power. On Issue 2: The Court found that the petitioners' claim for damages was neither liquidated nor certain. While the petition mentioned specific amounts for fiscal years 1962-1963 (P7,450.00) and 1963-1964 (P15,480.00) representing alleged accrued salaries, wages, and sundry expenses, these claims were denied by the respondents, and no evidence was submitted to substantiate them. Consequently, there was no clear showing that the petitioners' claim was liquidated and certain, which is a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court reiterated the principle that mandamus will not lie to compel the allowance or payment of a claim that is not fixed by law or requires further determination.
Main Doctrine
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may only be availed of to compel the performance of a ministerial duty or to enforce a clear, demandable, and liquidated right. It cannot be used to control the exercise of discretion by public officials, nor can it be employed to enforce claims that are uncertain or unliquidated, especially when such claims require further determination or substantiation by the respondent.