Del Rosario v. Shaikh
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election of officers for the Liga ng mga Barangay ng Pilipinas (Liga) Municipal Chapter of Bagac, Bataan. During the December 11, 2007 elections, a walkout occurred, leading to a dispute over who was legitimately elected President. Eva T. Shaikh was elected by the remaining attendees, while Ernesto N. Labog was later certified as Acting President. This dispute extended to Shaikh's claim for salaries and allowances as an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bagac, which was denied by Mayor Rommel V. Del Rosario due to the conflicting claims. Procedural History: Eva T. Shaikh filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel Mayor Del Rosario and Vice-Mayor Romeo T. Teopengco to release her salaries and allowances. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition, ruling that Shaikh had not been validly elected and thus acquired no right to the position. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, granting the mandamus and ordering the release of Shaikh's salaries and emoluments, finding her to be a de facto officer. The CA's decision and subsequent resolution denying reconsideration were then challenged by Mayor Del Rosario. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Mayor Del Rosario seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that mandamus does not lie to compel him to release Shaikh's salaries and emoluments. He contends that it is not his legal duty to do so, as administrative control over the Sangguniang Bayan's funds rests with the Vice-Mayor. Furthermore, the petition highlights that the CA's decision against Vice-Mayor Teopengco and Municipal Budget Officer Angelina M. Bontuyan is invalid due to their subsequent cessation from office and the failure to substitute them as parties, violating procedural rules and due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that Mayor Del Rosario, Vice-Mayor Teopengco, and Bontuyan may be compelled by mandamus to order the release of the salaries and emoluments claimed by Shaikh; specifically, whether mandamus lies against Mayor Del Rosario. Whether the CA erred in ordering the release of salaries and emoluments to Shaikh despite the procedural defect of non-substitution of parties, and whether the CA erred in rendering its decision against Vice-Mayor Teopengco and Bontuyan, and their successors.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, setting aside the Decision dated September 7, 2012, and the Resolution dated March 6, 2013, of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that mandamus will not lie against Mayor Del Rosario as ordering the release of salaries and emoluments of a Sangguniang Bayan member is not a duty imposed upon the Municipal Mayor, but rather on the Vice-Mayor who has administrative control over the Sanggunian's funds. Furthermore, the Court found that the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction in rendering its decision against Vice-Mayor Teopengco and Bontuyan, and their successors, due to Shaikh's failure to comply with the mandatory procedure for substitution of parties under Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus against Mayor Del Rosario: The Court held that mandamus will not lie to compel Mayor Del Rosario to order the release of Shaikh's salaries and emoluments. The Court clarified that the duty to approve vouchers and payrolls for the operation of the Sangguniang Bayan, including the salaries of its members, rests with the Vice-Mayor, who has administrative control over the Sanggunian's funds, as provided by Section 445(a)(1) of the Local Government Code and further elucidated in Atienza v. Villarosa. The Municipal Mayor has no legal duty to perform such an act, and therefore, cannot be said to have unlawfully neglected a duty. The act of releasing salaries for Sangguniang Bayan members is not a ministerial duty of the Municipal Mayor. On the issue of substitution of parties: The Court ruled that the CA erred in rendering its decision against Vice-Mayor Teopengco and Bontuyan, and their successors, due to Shaikh's failure to comply with Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates the substitution of public officers who cease to hold office during the pendency of an action. Shaikh did not file a motion for substitution for Vice-Mayor Teopengco (who lost in the 2010 elections) and Bontuyan (who retired). The Court cited Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. Court of Appeals to emphasize that non-compliance with this substitution procedure renders the action against the former officers moot and academic and any judgment against them or their successors without proper substitution is rendered in excess of jurisdiction and violates due process. The CA's decision against the successors of Vice-Mayor Teopengco and Bontuyan was therefore invalid as they were not properly substituted and given notice and opportunity to be heard.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to compel the release of salaries and emoluments if the act is not purely ministerial or if there is no clear legal duty imposed upon the officer sought to be compelled. Furthermore, failure to comply with the rules on substitution of parties when a public officer ceases to hold office renders the action against the former officer moot and academic.