Turrecha v. Santaromana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eusebio Turrecha sold a parcel of land to the municipality of San Jose for P200. He presented a deed and requested payment from the municipal treasurer. The treasurer refused to pay because the district auditor had ordered him not to. Procedural History: The petitioner, Eusebio Turrecha, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal treasurer of San Jose, Antique, to pay him P200 for the land sold to the municipality. The respondent treasurer demurred to the petition, admitting the facts but contesting the legal basis for the mandamus. The Petition: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal treasurer to pay for the land. The core legal issue was whether mandamus would lie against the treasurer when the district auditor had ordered payment withheld. The court considered sections 590 and 653 of Act No. 2711 (Administrative Code), noting that payment requires approval from the Bureau of Audits and that an aggrieved party has a remedy by appealing to the Insular Auditor. The court sustained the demurrer, denying the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus will lie against a municipal treasurer to compel payment for land purchased by the municipality, despite an order from the district auditor not to pay. Whether the municipal treasurer has a ministerial duty to pay for the land purchase without the approval of the Bureau of Audits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer to the petition and ordered that judgment be entered denying the prayer of the petition, with costs against the petitioner. The Court held that mandamus will not lie in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that mandamus will not lie against the municipal treasurer to compel payment for the land purchased by the municipality in the face of an objection from the district auditor. Section 590 of Act No. 2711 (Administrative Code) grants the Insular Auditor the power to require submission of deeds and other obligations for inspection before payment from government funds. Furthermore, for property purchased by the government, the Auditor must be satisfied with the title. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this section indicate that payment of money out of the municipal treasury for such obligations is not a purely ministerial duty and requires the approval of the Bureau of Audits. Therefore, the municipal treasurer has no obligation to pay until such approval is obtained, making the act sought to be compelled discretionary or contingent. On Issue 2: The Court found that the municipal treasurer's duty to pay was not purely ministerial because it was subject to the approval of the Bureau of Audits. The law, specifically Section 590 of the Administrative Code and its implementing rules, requires that before payment is made for property purchased by the government, the Auditor must be satisfied with the title and the transaction. Consequently, the treasurer cannot be compelled by mandamus to pay if the necessary auditing approval has not been secured. Moreover, Section 653 of Act No. 2711 provides an adequate remedy for any person aggrieved by the action or decision of a district auditor, allowing an appeal to the Insular Auditor within one year. This remedy must be exhausted before judicial recourse can be taken.
Main Doctrine
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a respondent to perform a ministerial duty. However, it cannot be used to compel a municipal treasurer to pay for a land purchase when such payment is subject to the approval of the Bureau of Audits. The refusal to pay, in this context, is not a failure to perform a ministerial duty but rather an adherence to the auditing regulations. Furthermore, when a party is aggrieved by the decision of a district auditor, the law provides an adequate remedy through an appeal to the Insular Auditor, which must be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention.