Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1973 > July 1973 Decisions > G.R. No. L-33156 July 25, 1973 - GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-33156. July 25, 1973.]

GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, PATRICIO C. PEREZ, and FEDERICO L. CABATO, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF BAGUIO, THE CITY TREASURER of Baguio, CITY AUDITOR of Baguio, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and THE HONORABLE AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-34011. July 25, 1973.]

NAPOLEON D. VILLANUEVA, in his capacity as City Judge of Butuan, Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON. AUDITOR GENERAL, HON. CITY AUDITOR OF BUTUAN AND HON. CITY TREASURER OF BUTUAN, Respondents.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Bernardo P. Pardo, Assistant Solicitor General Crispin V . Bautista, Solicitor Eulogio Raquel-Santos and Solicitor Jose A. Janolo for respondents The Honorable Secretary of Justice, Et. Al.

Ernesto B. Flores and Octavio M. Bante for respondents The City of Baguio, Et. Al.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


The two petitions at bar are herein jointly decided since they involve a common question of law raised by petitioners-city judges of Baguio and Butuan Cities against respondent Auditor-General’s ruling based on the opinion of respondent Secretary of Justice that under the express proviso of the second paragraph of section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967 (enacted without Executive approval on June 21, 1969) 1 petitioners’ salary as city judges "shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor," i.e. at P16,800.00 per annum since the city mayors receive a salary of P18,000.00 per annum.

The Court applies herein its recent ruling in PEMA (Philnabank Employees Association) v. Auditor General 2 to the effect that public officers and employees such as petitioners-city judges are not private persons or entities who alone under the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 327 are entitled to appeal the Auditor-General’s adverse decision directly to the Supreme Court instead of to the President.

In purported implementation of Republic Act No. 5967, the Baguio and Butuan city councils passed resolutions fixing the petitioners-city judges’ salaries at P19,000.00 per annum and appropriating their respective city shares.

Thus, petitioners-city judges were paid and received their respective salaries at P19,000.00 per annum for the periods mentioned in the petitions, until after such payments were reverted to P16,800.00 per annum by virtue of Provincial Memorandum No. 38 dated October 27, 1970 issued by respondent Auditor General. Said official therein quoted in full the opinion dated October 5,1970 of respondent Secretary of Justice, holding that the qualifying proviso in the Act that the salary of city judges "shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor" (of P18,000.00 per annum) prevails over the annual salary rate of P19,000.00 fixed in the first paragraph of section 7 of the Act, since inter alia, the primary purpose of a proviso is to limit or restrain the general language of the statute and the proviso takes precedence over the body of the text as the latest expression of the legislative intent as borne out further by the Senate floor deliberations which centered on the proposition embodied in the proviso that the salary of a city judge should not be higher than that of the mayor. Respondent Auditor General therefore enjoined therein all concerned "to see to it that the annual salary of city court judges is at least one hundred pesos per month less than the salary of the city mayor concerned."cralaw virtua1aw library

Faced furthermore with demands of the city treasurers for refunds of the "overpayments" made to them in excess of P16,800.00 per annum, petitioners city judges of Baguio city filed on March 1, 1971 their amended petition at bar in the form of mandamus to set aside respondent Auditor-General’s ruling. Petitioner city judge of Butuan city filed on September 7, 1971 his petition at bar "for review and/or mandamus certiorari and prohibition" after having served on respondents officials a specific notice of appealing the Auditor General’s decision to this Court, and likewise prayed for judgment to prohibit enforcement of the said decision appealed from.

As in PEMA v. Auditor General, supra, the parties have discussed quite lengthily in their memoranda the basic and related issues revolving on the proper interpretation of the provisions of section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967 which provided for salary increases for city judges under the qualifying provisos therein embodied 3 and questioning the adverse ruling respondent Auditor General as based on the opinion of the Secretary of Justice. The basic and prejudicial question noted by the Court, however, is the jurisdictional one of whether this Court may take cognizance of the petitioners-city judges’ appeal from the adverse ruling of the Auditor General on the annual salary to which they are entitled under the Act, in the light of the fact that they are not a "private party or entity" who is entitled under the Constitution and the implementing Act, Commonwealth Act No. 327, to appeal said respondent’s decision directly to this Court.

Petitioners’ appeals at bar from the adverse ruling of the Auditor General, having been filed on March 1, 1971 and September 7, 1971, respectively, are governed by the provisions of the 1935 Constitution (section 3, Article XI 4) and by the implementing Act, Commonwealth Act No. 327, whereunder only a "private party or entity" may appeal from the Auditor-General’s decision directly to the Supreme Court; otherwise the appeal should be taken to the President, whose action shall be final. This was but recently affirmed by the Court in PEMA v. Auditor General, supra, wherein the therein petitioner-union’s appeal to this Court was dismissed "since the members of petitioner-union are employees of the Philippine National Bank, which is a government-owned and controlled corporation, they are government employees and not private persons or entities," who may appeal the Auditor-General’s ruling "directly to the Supreme Court instead of to the President."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since petitioners-city judges are manifestly not private persons or entities who could appeal the Auditor General’s decision directly to the Supreme Court rather than to the President, the present petitions are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

Their claims as public officers are money claims against the refund of overpayments ordered by the Auditor-General and for an increased payment of salary beyond that fixed by him which are appealable to the President and not to this Court. No question of constitutionality of Republic Act 5967 is herein involved. Since the acts complained of appear to be within the competence and jurisdiction of respondent Auditor-General and no clear and imperative duty on his part to perform the acts required has been shown, neither certiorari or prohibition nor mandamus properly lies in the cases at bar.

The Court has taken note of the counterpart provision of the 1973 Constitution (section 2(2), Article XII, sub-article D 5) which provides for appeals from the decision or ruling of the Commission on Audit (not yet organized) by the aggrieved party directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari (in view of the contemplated transition from the presidential to the parliamentary system 6). The question of whether such counterpart provision may be deemed now in force and as to its effect, if any, on the previous implementing Act, Commonwealth Act No. 327, i.e. whether public officers and employees like private parties may now after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution appeal directly to this Court, is not herein involved and its determination will have to wait an appropriate case. As above stated, petitioners’ appeals were filed in 1971 and are governed by the 1935 Constitution and the implementing Act, Commonwealth Act No. 327, which bar the appeal taken by them to this Court.

ACCORDINGLY, the two petitions at bar are dismissed, the adverse decision of respondent Auditor-General being appealable to the President of the Philippines and not to this Court. No costs.

Makalintal, Actg. C.J., Castro, Fernando, Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar and Barredo, JJ., are on leave.

Antonio, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Entitled "An Act raising the status of city judges, enlarging the jurisdiction of the city court and for other purposes."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. L-30137, promulgated June 25, 1973.

3. The pertinent salary and qualifying provisions of the Act read.

"SEC. 7. Unless the City Charter or any special law provides higher salary, the city judge in chartered cities shall receive a basic salary which shall not be lower than the sums as provided hereinbelow:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) For the City of Manila, twenty-two thousand pesos per annum:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(b) For the cities of Baguio, Quezon, Pasay, Cebu, Caloocan and other first class cities, nineteen thousand pesos per annum;

(c) For second and third class cities, eighteen thousand pesos per annum;

(d) For other cities, sixteen thousand pesos per annum: . . .

Henceforth, unless the city charter or any special law provides higher salary, and subject to the implementation of the respective city government, the salary of the city judges of chartered cities may be raised by the City Council, if and when the salary of the district judge of the Court of First Instance is likewise raised, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the City of Manila, the city judge shall receive one thousand pesos less than the salary fixed for the district judge;

"For the cities of Baguio, Quezon, Pasay and other first class cities, the city judge shall receive one thousand pesos less than that fixed for the district judge, and for second and third class cities, the city judge shall receive one thousand five hundred pesos less than that fixed for the district judge, and for other cities, the city judge shall receive two thousand pesos less than that fixed for the district judge: Provided, however, That the salary of a city judge shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less than that of the city mayor."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. "SEC. 3. The decisions of the Auditor General shall be rendered within the time fixed by law, and the same may be appealed to the President whose action shall be final. When the aggrieved party is a private person or entity, an appeal from the decision of the Auditor General may be taken directly to a court of record in the manner provided by law." (1935 Constitution).

5. "SEC. 2. The Commission on Audit shall have the following powers and functions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(2) Decide any case brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for resolution. Unless otherwise provided by law any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof." (1973 Constitution).

6. See Art. XVII, sec. 5, 1973 Constitution.




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






July-1973 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27608 July 6, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOTEO MANIPULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33141 July 6, 1973 - SARBRO & COMPANY, INC. v. BRIGIDA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27200 July 9, 1973 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA v. SEVERINA NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28227 July 11, 1973 - FELICIANO YABUT, ET AL. v. REMEGIO LILLES

  • G.R. No. L-30761 July 11, 1973 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MANDAUE, PROVINCE

  • G.R. No. L-32998 July 12, 1973 - MERCY ALMONIDOVAR DE VERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-35766 July 12, 1973 - LIBERATO V. CASALS, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26950 July 13, 1973 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28087 July 13, 1973 - BORMAHECO, INC. v. ELEUTERIO V. ABANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28251 July 13, 1973 - ESTEBAN G. HERNAEZ v. ANDRES MAMALIO

  • G.R. No. L-33410 July 13, 1973 - ROMEO ESPINO, ET AL. v. JIMENO CLEOFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-34594-95 July 13, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAHIM ALAMADA

  • G.R. No. L-29770 July 19, 1973 - PHILIPPINE FIBER PROCESSING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31213-14 July 23, 1973 - GERONIMO C. VENERACION v. CONGSON ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27672 July 25, 1973 - TRIFON G. ESPIRITU, ET AL. v. ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29644 July 25, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ANDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30104 July 25, 1973 - GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL. v. FELIX DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33156 July 25, 1973 - GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29598 July 26, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CAJANDAB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22027 July 31, 1973 - DEMETRIO CARPENA v. MELQUIADES SALISI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28516 July 31, 1973 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ZOILO C. ALBERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28873 July 31, 1973 - EMMA B. VELEZ, ET AL. v. ROBERTO VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32036 July 31, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VILLAFUERTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32473 July 31, 1973 - IGNACIO VICENTE, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-32941 July 31, 1973 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27608 July 6, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOTEO MANIPULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33141 July 6, 1973 - SARBRO & COMPANY, INC. v. BRIGIDA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27200 July 9, 1973 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA v. SEVERINA NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28227 July 11, 1973 - FELICIANO YABUT, ET AL. v. REMEGIO LILLES

  • G.R. No. L-30761 July 11, 1973 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MANDAUE, PROVINCE

  • G.R. No. L-32998 July 12, 1973 - MERCY ALMONIDOVAR DE VERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-35766 July 12, 1973 - LIBERATO V. CASALS, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26950 July 13, 1973 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28087 July 13, 1973 - BORMAHECO, INC. v. ELEUTERIO V. ABANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28251 July 13, 1973 - ESTEBAN G. HERNAEZ v. ANDRES MAMALIO

  • G.R. No. L-33410 July 13, 1973 - ROMEO ESPINO, ET AL. v. JIMENO CLEOFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-34594-95 July 13, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAHIM ALAMADA

  • G.R. No. L-29770 July 19, 1973 - PHILIPPINE FIBER PROCESSING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31213-14 July 23, 1973 - GERONIMO C. VENERACION v. CONGSON ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27672 July 25, 1973 - TRIFON G. ESPIRITU, ET AL. v. ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29644 July 25, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ANDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30104 July 25, 1973 - GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL. v. FELIX DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33156 July 25, 1973 - GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29598 July 26, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CAJANDAB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22027 July 31, 1973 - DEMETRIO CARPENA v. MELQUIADES SALISI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28516 July 31, 1973 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ZOILO C. ALBERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28873 July 31, 1973 - EMMA B. VELEZ, ET AL. v. ROBERTO VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32036 July 31, 1973 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VILLAFUERTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32473 July 31, 1973 - IGNACIO VICENTE, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-32941 July 31, 1973 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.