Perez v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Virginia F. Perez, Vice-Mayor of Naga City, presided over a conference where she expressed her intention to vote twice in the selection of the city secretary and committee chairmen, first to create a tie and then to break it. Four councilors filed a petition for prohibition with a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Perez from voting except in case of a tie. Procedural History: The respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining Perez from voting except in case of a tie. Perez filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. She then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition and dissolved its restraining order. Perez then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Perez sought to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of prohibitory injunction issued by the respondent judge, arguing that the Vice-Mayor is a member of the Municipal Board and can vote twice. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of the trial court's writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the Vice-Mayor of Naga City, as presiding officer of the Municipal Board, is also a member thereof and can vote twice. Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibitory injunction against the Vice-Mayor.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved, at petitioner's cost. The Vice-Mayor of Naga City is not a member of the Municipal Board and cannot vote twice. The respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Vice-Mayor is a member of the Municipal Board and can vote twice: The Court held that the Vice-Mayor of Naga City, despite being the presiding officer of the Municipal Board, is not a member thereof. Republic Act No. 305 (Naga City Charter) did not originally provide for a Vice-Mayor, and Republic Act No. 2259, which created the position, only designated the Vice-Mayor as the presiding officer, not a constituent member. Unlike other city charters that explicitly made the Vice-Mayor a member, the Naga City charter and its amendments do not grant such status. Therefore, the Vice-Mayor cannot vote twice – once to create a tie and again to break it – as this privilege is reserved for members of the board or presiding officers expressly granted such power by law. The existing Rules of Procedure of the Municipal Board of Naga City, prior to the controversy, explicitly stated that the chairman cannot vote except in case of a tie, and a member acting as chairman may vote as a member and as chairman to break a tie. The attempt to amend these rules pendente lite was deemed a nullity. On the issue of the respondent judge's jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition. The argument that legislative officials are immune from judicial restraint was deemed inapplicable to local governments, which may have officials vested with both legislative and executive functions. Courts are statutorily authorized to determine the validity of municipal proceedings. The Vice-Mayor's insistence on voting twice was considered an act without jurisdiction and power, which could be validly restrained by a writ of prohibition. Prohibition is a preventive remedy, and the Vice-Mayor's threat to vote twice was not considered a mere hypothetical act, especially given her subsequent actions after the Court of Appeals' restraining order.
Main Doctrine
The Vice-Mayor of Naga City, while serving as the presiding officer of the Municipal Board, is not a member thereof and therefore cannot vote twice – once to create a tie and again to break it – unless expressly provided by law or the board's rules of procedure, and the respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against the Vice-Mayor's unlawful exercise of legislative functions.