Rimando v. Naguilian Emission Testing Center
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc. (respondent) sought a business permit from Abraham P. Rimando, then Mayor of Naguilian, La Union. The respondent operated its business on land certified as alienable and disposable, having previously paid the required fees for permit renewal. However, Mayor Rimando refused to issue the permit unless the respondent executed a contract of lease with the Municipality of Naguilian for the land it occupied. Despite the respondent's willingness to sign, proposed revisions to the lease agreement were not acceptable to the Mayor, leading to a deadlock. Procedural History: The respondent filed a petition for mandamus and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, seeking to compel Mayor Rimando to issue the business permit. The RTC denied the petition, ruling that the municipality owned the land, that a lease contract was permissible under municipal revenue code, and that the mayor's duty to issue permits was discretionary and not enforceable by mandamus. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, while noting the case was moot due to the expired permit period and the Mayor's term, reversed the RTC's decision, finding the tax declaration insufficient to mandate a lease and deeming a relevant Sangguniang Bayan resolution void. The CA's resolution was affirmed upon the Mayor's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Abraham Rimando filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the CA erred in declaring the Sangguniang Bayan resolution void and in ruling that mandamus was a proper remedy to determine land ownership. The core of his argument, echoing the RTC's stance, is that the issuance of business permits by a mayor is a discretionary act, an exercise of delegated police power, and thus not subject to a writ of mandamus. He also contended that the case had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the permit period and his term as mayor.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus has become moot and academic. Whether the mayor can be compelled by mandamus to issue a business permit. Whether the CA erred in ruling on the ownership of the land and the validity of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2007-81.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision, denying the petition for mandamus. The Court found the petition moot and academic due to the expiration of the permit period and the petitioner's term as mayor. It reiterated that a mayor's power to issue business permits is discretionary and cannot be compelled by mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the petition for mandamus had become moot and academic because the period for which the business permit was sought had already lapsed, and the petitioner's term as mayor had expired. Therefore, any ruling on the issuance of the permit would have no practical effect, as the petitioner could no longer comply with a writ of mandamus, and the permit's effectivity date had passed. On the compelability of a mayor to issue a business permit: The Court reiterated that a mayor's duty to issue business permits is discretionary and not ministerial, derived from the delegated police power of a municipal corporation and exercised through the power to issue licenses and permits under the Local Government Code. Because the exercise of this power is discretionary, it cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus, which is reserved for ministerial duties. On the CA's pronouncements on land ownership and the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution: The Supreme Court found the CA's conclusions on the ownership of the subject land and the invalidity of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2007-81 to be unsubstantiated by convincing evidence and practically unusable. The overriding and decisive factor was the mootness of the case, and the CA should have dismissed the appeal on that ground, along with the petition for mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus cannot compel a mayor to issue a business permit as the exercise of this power is discretionary and falls under the delegated police power of the local government unit, governed by the general welfare clause.