Gobierno Municipal de San Pedro v. Junta Provincial de Laguna
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna, enacted Ordinance No. 10, series of 1935, to regulate the use and enjoyment of waters within a specific zone of the municipality. This ordinance was initially approved by the Provincial Board of Laguna. 2. Procedural History: Following the initial approval, the Provincial Board, upon the recommendation of the provincial fiscal who opined that the waters in question were on private property (Hacienda Tunasan) and thus outside the municipal council's jurisdiction, reconsidered its decision. By resolution dated April 15, 1936, the Provincial Board revoked its prior approval and declared Municipal Ordinance No. 10 null and void. 3. The Petition: The Municipal Council of San Pedro filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the Provincial Board to revoke its resolution of April 15, 1936, and reinstate its earlier approval of November 6, 1935. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Board has the authority to approve or annul municipal ordinances if they are found to be outside the council's jurisdiction, and that the Board's reconsideration and subsequent annulment were within its powers. Therefore, the petition for mandamus was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Board of Laguna acted within its authority in reconsidering and annulling Municipal Ordinance No. 10 of San Pedro, Laguna. Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the Provincial Board to maintain its prior approval of the municipal ordinance.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is denied, and the decision of the lower court is affirmed. The Provincial Board acted within its legal powers when it annulled the municipal ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Provincial Board acted within its legal authority when it reconsidered and annulled Municipal Ordinance No. 10. Article 2233 of the Administrative Code grants provincial boards the power to examine municipal resolutions and ordinances, or to refer them to the provincial fiscal for an opinion on their legality. If a provincial board finds that a resolution or ordinance was enacted beyond the powers conferred upon the municipal council, it has the authority to declare it null and void, subject to the final determination of the head of the executive office. The fact that the Provincial Board had initially approved the ordinance does not preclude it from later reconsidering its action and revoking the approval if it determines that the ordinance is outside the municipal council's jurisdiction. Article 2233 does not impose any limitations on this power of reconsideration. On Issue 2: A writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy in this case. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a public official to perform a ministerial duty that is clearly required by law. In this instance, the Provincial Board's decision to annul the ordinance was an exercise of its discretionary power, as it falls within its authority to determine the legality and jurisdictional scope of municipal ordinances. Therefore, the Court cannot use mandamus to compel the Provincial Board to act in a specific manner concerning a matter that is within its judgment and discretion to resolve.
Main Doctrine
The Provincial Board possesses the power to review municipal ordinances and declare them null and void if they are found to be outside the jurisdiction of the municipal council. This power is not limited by prior approval of the ordinance, as the Board may reconsider and revoke its previous actions if deemed necessary. The exercise of this power is subject to the determination of the head of the executive office.