Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

052 Phil 896:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 30896. March 5, 1929.]

HIGINO ENAGE, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Jose P. Laurel and Roberto Concepcion, for Plaintiff.

Provincial Fiscal Consing, for Defendant.

SYLLABUS


1. QUO WARRANTO; WHEN LIES; INCUMBENCY OF EXISTING OFFICE. — Quo warranto will lie only when the party proceeded against is either a de facto or a de jure officer in possession of the office.

2. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS; PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR; LEGALITY OF FUSION OF OFFICE OF PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR WITH OFFICE OF PROVINCIAL TREASURER. — Sections 2092 and 2093 of the Administrative Code providing for a provincial assessor in each province contemplate that a government officer or employee may be appointed to the position of assessor or deputy assessor. The functions of the two offices of provincial assessor and provincial treasurer are not incompatible. Contrasting the duties of the provincial assessor with the duties of the provincial treasurer, there is no conflict of interests and one office is not subordinate to the other.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — For about ten years, it has been the policy of the Executive Bureau to have the provincial treasurer hold at the same time the position of provincial assessor in their respective provinces for purposes of efficiency and economy. This settled governmental practice should be respected by the courts.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is held that the consolidation of the positions of provincial assessor and provincial treasurer is legal.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J.:


This is an action of quo warranto with preliminary injunction commenced by Higino Enage, provincial assessor of Leyte, against Francisco Martinez, provincial treasurer of Leyte, to test the legal right of the provincial board of Leyte and the Chief of the Executive Bureau to provide for the fusion of the office of provincial assessor of Leyte with the office of provincial treasurer of that province. To the complaint, the defendant has interposed a demurrer.

Higino Enage was appointed provincial assessor of Leyte on December 13,1917, by the Chief of the Executive Bureau. Mr. Enage has filled the position to which named from that date until the present. Beginning with 1925, the provincial board of Leyte has made unsuccessful attempts to legislate Mr. Enage out of office. One of these attempts resulted in an opinion by the Attorney-General disapproving the legality of the board’s action. However, undismayed by previous failures, on February 28, 1928, the provincial board of Leyte provided for the fusion of the offices of the provincial assessor and the provincial treasurer. This resolution, on reaching the Executive Bureau, was approved effective January 1, 1929. Subsequently, the provincial board of Leyte adopted another resolution providing that beginning with January 1, 1929, the provincial treasurer be regarded as provincial assessor with all the rights and privileges pertaining to that office.

A technical defense suggested by the demurrer must first be noticed. The complaint fails to allege that the defendant is unlawfully in possession of the office claimed by the plaintiff. Quo warranto will lie only when the party proceeded against is either a de facto or a de jure officer in possession of the office. (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 201, 202; Lino Luna v. Rodriguez [1917], 36 Phil., 401; 22 R. C. L., p. 663.) However, as all that keeps the defendant from taking possession of the office of provincial assessor of Leyte is the restraining order of this court, and as after having done so the same state of facts would be present, it is deemed more practicable and more to the public interest to decide the case on the merits.

Sections 2092 and 2093 of the Administrative Code provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2092. Provincial assessor. — There shall be a provincial assessor in each province wherein is located real property subject to the annual ad valorem tax.

"Except as otherwise specially provided, he shall be appointed by the Chief of the Executive Bureau upon nomination of the provincial board. He shall be a resident of the province to which appointed, and his salary shall be as fixed by the provincial board with the approval of the Chief of the Executive Bureau."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SEC. 2093. Application of Civil Service Law to assessor and deputy assessor. — The positions of assessor and deputy assessor shall not be primarily subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Law; but if any civil-service employee should be transferred to such position or the duties thereof should be imposed upon any such employee, his civil service status and privileges shall not be thereby suspended or impaired.

"A Government officer or employee appointed to the position of assessor or deputy assessor may be allowed additional compensation for his services in such capacity which shall be fixed in his appointment or designation."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the application which should be given to the above-quoted legal provisions, it is to be noted that the law contemplates that a government officer or employee may be appointed to the position of assessor or deputy assessor. This being true, the particular point now to be decided is whether or not there exists incompatibility between the positions of provincial assessor and provincial treasurer. We do not think that it has been shown that the functions of the two offices are inconsistent. Originally and before the position of provincial assessor was created by Act No. 2238, the provincial treasurer, either in person or by authorized deputy, supervised the appraisement and assessment of real property in all the municipalities of the province (Provincial Government Act, No. 83, sec. 9). Contrasting the duties of the provincial assessor with the duties of the provincial treasurer, there is no conflict of interests and one office is not subordinate to the other.

There is another aspect to the question. According to a statement made by the Assistant Chief of the Executive Bureau, for about ten years it has been the policy of that office to have the provincial treasurers hold at the same time the position of provincial assessor in their respective provinces "for purposes of efficiency and economy. As a result of this policy there are only four provinces now, namely: Bohol, Leyte, Pangasinan and Oriental Negros whose provincial assessors are not the provincial treasurers." This settled governmental practice should be respected by the courts. The opinion emitted by the Attorney-General is not in conflict with this view for this opinion had to do with the action of the provincial board of Leyte in endeavoring by itself to abolish the office of provincial assessor, while the instant facts concern the action taken by the Chief of the Executive Bureau, the appointing power.

It results, therefore, in the demurrer being sustainable on two grounds, the first having to do with the defect in the complaint, and the second having to do with the material question which is in dispute. As to the latter, we rule that the consolidation of the positions of provincial assessor and provincial treasurer was legal. Accordingly, the demurrer to the complaint will be sustained, and as it is manifest that it would he impossible to reform the complaint to state a good cause of action, the proceedings will be dismissed and the preliminary injunction previously issued set aside. Without special taxation of costs, it will be so ordered.

Johnson, Streets Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172