October 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > October 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 156697-98 : October 09, 2007] MAYOR NORBERTO M. MENDOZA V. ABSTENENCIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL. :
[G.R. Nos. 156697-98 : October 09, 2007]
MAYOR NORBERTO M. MENDOZA V. ABSTENENCIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 09 October 2007
G.R. Nos. 156697-98 (Mayor Norberto M. Mendoza v. Abstenencia de Guzman, et al.)
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the June 28, 2002 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed and set aside the July 9, 1999 Resolution No. 991530[2] of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in Mendoza, Norberto M. Re: Recall of Appointments, and the April 12, 1999 Order[3] of the Oriental Mindoro Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39 in Special Civil Action No. R-4664 entitled Teresa Ramos, Abstenencia de Guzman, et al. v. Hon. Norberto Mendoza, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, et al. The appellate court ordered the incumbent mayor of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro to implement and enforce Appropriation Ordinance No. 02, Series of 1998 (Ordinance).
The Ordinance, entitled "An Ordinance Enacting Supplemental Budget No. 1 of the General Fund for FY 1998 of the Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro," was enacted in May 1998. In accordance with the Ordinance, then Mayor Nelson B. Melgar extended several appointments promoting respondents and other municipal employees. The appointees took their oath of office and discharged their duties in June 1998.
On July 3, 1998, petitioner, as the newly elected mayor of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, issued Memorandum No. 98-006 suspending the implementation of the Ordinance since he found irregularities in its passage. Payments from salaries and emoluments arising from the appointments were suspended and those appointed were temporarily terminated and/or reverted to their former positions.
On July 9, 1998, petitioner requested the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro to declare as illegal, invalid, and ineffective the questioned Ordinance on the ground that it was not deliberated on by the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, in violation of Article 107, Rule 17 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.[4]
On July 10, 1998, petitioner likewise requested the CSC to recall the appointments issued by former Naujan Mayor Nelson B. Melgar in favor of 50 municipal employees pursuant to the Ordinance. The CSC issued Resolution No. 991530 on July 9, 1999 granting his request. Meanwhile, on August 3, 1998, Provincial Legal Officer Dante A. Manzo issued a Memorandum addressed to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the disapproval of the Ordinance. On the same date, Resolution No. 152-98 was passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan approving the Ordinance.
On September 29, 1998, Oriental Mindoro Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia returned Resolution No. 152-98 without his approval as it did not conform to the required Three-Reading Rule in violation of Article 107 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 991530 which was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 992566 on November 19, 1999. Aggrieved, on January 4, 2000 they filed a petition for review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56296 with the CA.
On August 26, 1998, respondents likewise filed a Petition for Mandamus docketed as Special Civil Action No. R-4664 with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages against petitioner before the Oriental Mindoro RTC. Pursuant to the Ordinance, they sought to compel petitioner to implement the Ordinance and to direct him to pay the salaries and emoluments of respondents who were appointed by then Mayor Melgar.
The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The fallo of its Order reads:
The two appealed cases were consolidated on petitioner's motion. Petitioner averred that the questioned Ordinance was not validly enacted into law by the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan as attested to by sworn declarations and documentary evidence submitted by petitioner.
In its June 28, 2002 Decision[6] the CA held that the acts of petitioner in suspending the implementation of the Ordinance and having the CSC recall respondents' appointments amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and disregard for the presumption of validity of laws and ordinances.
According to the CA, the CSC in its challenged resolutions erroneously held that the questioned Ordinance was null and void; and that the governor has no power to review the approved ordinances and resolutions enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan.
Moreover, the CA held that the duty to uphold the promotion or appointment of respondents and to pay the corresponding salaries and wages is actionable by mandamus.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari raises the following issues:
Simply the issue is: Did the CA err in ruling that the Ordinance is valid and not susceptible to collateral attack?
As the issues are interrelated, they will be discussed jointly.
It must be pointed out that the petition filed by respondents before the RTC was for mandamus. The writ of mandamus is available when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[8] The issue put forth by respondents is the unjustified refusal of petitioner to perform a ministerial duty by invalidating respondents appointments and excluding them from enjoying salaries they are entitled to. Hence, according to respondents, mandamus would lie.
But petitioner mayor insists that the issue to be resolved is the validity of the Ordinance. He does not question the ministerial duty to enforce the Ordinance, his main argument hinging on the irregular enactment of the said Ordinance during the time of his predecessor.
Petitioner's postulation is bereft of merit.
As pointed out by the CA, a municipal ordinance is not subject to collateral attack. The validity of the Ordinance cannot be assailed in the respondents' petition for mandamus as that would be a collateral attack on a law. Public policy forbids collateral impeachment of legislative acts.[9] To sustain petitioner's claim would run counter to the principles of due process and the presumption in favor of constitutionality. It was therefore erroneous for the trial court case to allow petitioner to present evidence disputing the Ordinance when the main controversy pertained to an entirely different issue.
To reiterate, a petition for mandamus is not the proper proceeding to raise the invalidity of the questioned Ordinance. It has been held that when a municipal corporation has the power to enact an ordinance but does so in an unauthorized mode, the Ordinance is still legally binding until judicially held otherwise.[10] The validity of the Ordinance cannot be questioned collaterally as a matter of defense to an action under it.[11] Whether the Ordinance was indeed a falsified document must be resolved in a separate action. This would afford the proper parties the opportunity to prove the validity of the Ordinance in an appropriate proceeding. Until thus resolved, the Ordinance in question enjoys a presumption of validity, and petitioner as incumbent mayor is duty-bound to implement it.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM IN TOTO the June 28, 2002 Decision of the CA.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 156697-98 (Mayor Norberto M. Mendoza v. Abstenencia de Guzman, et al.)
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the June 28, 2002 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed and set aside the July 9, 1999 Resolution No. 991530[2] of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in Mendoza, Norberto M. Re: Recall of Appointments, and the April 12, 1999 Order[3] of the Oriental Mindoro Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39 in Special Civil Action No. R-4664 entitled Teresa Ramos, Abstenencia de Guzman, et al. v. Hon. Norberto Mendoza, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, et al. The appellate court ordered the incumbent mayor of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro to implement and enforce Appropriation Ordinance No. 02, Series of 1998 (Ordinance).
The Ordinance, entitled "An Ordinance Enacting Supplemental Budget No. 1 of the General Fund for FY 1998 of the Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro," was enacted in May 1998. In accordance with the Ordinance, then Mayor Nelson B. Melgar extended several appointments promoting respondents and other municipal employees. The appointees took their oath of office and discharged their duties in June 1998.
On July 3, 1998, petitioner, as the newly elected mayor of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, issued Memorandum No. 98-006 suspending the implementation of the Ordinance since he found irregularities in its passage. Payments from salaries and emoluments arising from the appointments were suspended and those appointed were temporarily terminated and/or reverted to their former positions.
On July 9, 1998, petitioner requested the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro to declare as illegal, invalid, and ineffective the questioned Ordinance on the ground that it was not deliberated on by the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, in violation of Article 107, Rule 17 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.[4]
On July 10, 1998, petitioner likewise requested the CSC to recall the appointments issued by former Naujan Mayor Nelson B. Melgar in favor of 50 municipal employees pursuant to the Ordinance. The CSC issued Resolution No. 991530 on July 9, 1999 granting his request. Meanwhile, on August 3, 1998, Provincial Legal Officer Dante A. Manzo issued a Memorandum addressed to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the disapproval of the Ordinance. On the same date, Resolution No. 152-98 was passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan approving the Ordinance.
On September 29, 1998, Oriental Mindoro Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia returned Resolution No. 152-98 without his approval as it did not conform to the required Three-Reading Rule in violation of Article 107 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 991530 which was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 992566 on November 19, 1999. Aggrieved, on January 4, 2000 they filed a petition for review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56296 with the CA.
On August 26, 1998, respondents likewise filed a Petition for Mandamus docketed as Special Civil Action No. R-4664 with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages against petitioner before the Oriental Mindoro RTC. Pursuant to the Ordinance, they sought to compel petitioner to implement the Ordinance and to direct him to pay the salaries and emoluments of respondents who were appointed by then Mayor Melgar.
The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The fallo of its Order reads:
In resume, this Court finds that the legal rights of the petitioners are not well-defined, clear and certain, hence, the instant mandamus falls on its weight.Respondents thus filed an appeal of the RTC Order docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 57284 with the CA.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The two appealed cases were consolidated on petitioner's motion. Petitioner averred that the questioned Ordinance was not validly enacted into law by the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan as attested to by sworn declarations and documentary evidence submitted by petitioner.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its June 28, 2002 Decision[6] the CA held that the acts of petitioner in suspending the implementation of the Ordinance and having the CSC recall respondents' appointments amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and disregard for the presumption of validity of laws and ordinances.
According to the CA, the CSC in its challenged resolutions erroneously held that the questioned Ordinance was null and void; and that the governor has no power to review the approved ordinances and resolutions enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan.
Moreover, the CA held that the duty to uphold the promotion or appointment of respondents and to pay the corresponding salaries and wages is actionable by mandamus.
The Issues
This Petition for Review on Certiorari raises the following issues:
I.
The [Court of Appeals erred in ruling that] petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of the enactment of [the Ordinance];II.
The [Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Ordinance] has been enacted as a valid local legislation; andIII.
The [Court of Appeals erred] in declaring that [the Ordinance] is not susceptible of collateral attack.[7]
The Court's Ruling
Simply the issue is: Did the CA err in ruling that the Ordinance is valid and not susceptible to collateral attack?
As the issues are interrelated, they will be discussed jointly.
It must be pointed out that the petition filed by respondents before the RTC was for mandamus. The writ of mandamus is available when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[8] The issue put forth by respondents is the unjustified refusal of petitioner to perform a ministerial duty by invalidating respondents appointments and excluding them from enjoying salaries they are entitled to. Hence, according to respondents, mandamus would lie.
But petitioner mayor insists that the issue to be resolved is the validity of the Ordinance. He does not question the ministerial duty to enforce the Ordinance, his main argument hinging on the irregular enactment of the said Ordinance during the time of his predecessor.
Petitioner's postulation is bereft of merit.
As pointed out by the CA, a municipal ordinance is not subject to collateral attack. The validity of the Ordinance cannot be assailed in the respondents' petition for mandamus as that would be a collateral attack on a law. Public policy forbids collateral impeachment of legislative acts.[9] To sustain petitioner's claim would run counter to the principles of due process and the presumption in favor of constitutionality. It was therefore erroneous for the trial court case to allow petitioner to present evidence disputing the Ordinance when the main controversy pertained to an entirely different issue.
To reiterate, a petition for mandamus is not the proper proceeding to raise the invalidity of the questioned Ordinance. It has been held that when a municipal corporation has the power to enact an ordinance but does so in an unauthorized mode, the Ordinance is still legally binding until judicially held otherwise.[10] The validity of the Ordinance cannot be questioned collaterally as a matter of defense to an action under it.[11] Whether the Ordinance was indeed a falsified document must be resolved in a separate action. This would afford the proper parties the opportunity to prove the validity of the Ordinance in an appropriate proceeding. Until thus resolved, the Ordinance in question enjoys a presumption of validity, and petitioner as incumbent mayor is duty-bound to implement it.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM IN TOTO the June 28, 2002 Decision of the CA.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 45-57. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-de La Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong.
[2] Id. at 139-149. The Resolution was penned by Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde and concurred in by Chairperson Corazon Alma G. de Leon and Commissioner Jose F. Erestain, Jr.
[3] Id. at 114-125. The Order was penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
[4] ART. 107. Ordinances and Resolutions. - The following rules shall govern the enactment of ordinances and resolutions.
| (a) | Legislative actions of a general and permanent character shall be enacted in the form of ordinances, while those which are of temporary character shall be passed in the form of resolutions. Matters relating to propriety functions and to private concerns shall also be acted upon by resolution. |
| (b) | Proposed ordinances and resolutions shall be in writing and shall contain an assigned number, a title, or caption, an enacting or ordaining clause, and the date of its proposed effectivity. In addition, every proposed ordinance shall be accompanied by a brief explanatory note containing the jurisdiction for its approval. It shall be signed by the author or authors and submitted to the secretary to the sanggunian at its next meeting. |
| (c) | A resolution shall be enacted in the same manner prescribed for an ordinance, except that it need not go through a third reading for its final consideration unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the sanggunian members. |
| (d) | No ordinance or resolution shall be considered on second reading in any regular meeting unless it has been reported out by the proper committee to which it was referred or certified as urgent by the local chief executive. |
| (e) | Any legislative matter duly certified by the local chief executive as urgent, whether or not it is included in the calendar of business, may be presented and considered by the body at the same time meeting without need of suspending the rules. |
| (f) | The secretary to the sanggunian of the province, city or municipality shall prepare copies of the proposed ordinance or resolution in the form it was passed on second reading, and shall distribute to each sanggunian member a copy thereof, except that a measure certified by the local chief executive concerned as urgent may be submitted for final voting immediately after debate or amendment. |
| (g) | No ordinance or resolution passed by the sanggunian in a regular or special session duly called for the purpose shall be valid unless approved by a majority of the members present, there being a quorum. Any ordinance or resolution authorizing or directing the payment of money or creating liability, shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all the sanggunian members for its passage. |
| (h) | Upon the passage of all ordinances and resolutions, directing the payment of money or creating liability, and at the request of the member, of any resolution or motion, the sanggunian shall record the ayes and nays. Each approved ordinance or resolution shall be stamped with the seal of the sanggunian and recorded in a book kept for the purpose. |
[5] Id. at 125.
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Rollo, pp.23-24.
[8] 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 65, Sec. 3.
[9] San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, No-L-21879, September 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 292, 298.
[10] Treasurer of City of Camden v. Mulford, 26 N.J.L. 49.
[11] Id.
