DAMASO DISCANSO AND FLORENCIO VALIENTE, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

Discanso versus Gatmaytan

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus brought by two policemen, Damaso Discanso and Florencio Valiente, against Felicisimo Gatmaytan, the municipal treasurer of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, to compel him to pay the back salaries that a court had already awarded them. The policemen had won an earlier case declaring their removal from office illegal; the municipal council then passed resolutions promising to pay, but never enacted an appropriation ordinance, and later even disallowed the amount. The case matters because it draws the line between a council's good intention and a legally effective appropriation, and it teaches when mandamus will and will not lie against a public officer.

Procedural History

The policemen first filed a special civil action for mandamus against the acting mayor after they were removed from office in 1952. The lower court ruled in their favor, declared the removal illegal, and ordered their reinstatement with payment of back salaries. When they sought execution of that judgment, the court denied the motion on the ground that public funds are exempt from attachment. They then filed the present petition for mandamus against the municipal treasurer to compel payment of their back salaries. The lower court again ruled for the policemen and ordered the treasurer to pay the amounts stated and approved in their vouchers. The treasurer appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the lower court erred in holding that a judgment against the mayor is a judgment against the municipality, and that it erred in ordering him to pay back salaries not provided in a budget approved by the municipal council.

Facts

Damaso Discanso and Florencio Valiente were policemen of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. In 1952 the acting mayor removed them from office. They sued, and the lower court declared their removal illegal, ordering their reinstatement and the payment of their back salaries.

Acting on that judgment, the municipal council of Guimba approved three resolutions, dated December 1955, June 1956, and July 1956, by which it assumed responsibility for and resolved to appropriate the amount of 5,173 pesos and 16 centavos for the back salaries, authorizing the amount to be carried as an outstanding obligation of the municipality in the annual budget for the fiscal year 1956 to 1957. The incumbent mayor approved the policemen's vouchers covering their salaries from July 1952 to October 1955, at 65 pesos per month, in the total amount of 2,528 pesos and 71 centavos each. When the vouchers were presented to the municipal treasurer, he refused to pay, claiming there were no funds. When the trial court examined him on the municipality's finances, it found that 10,000 pesos was available for the purpose.

Then, in October 1956, long after the three resolutions, a differently composed municipal council passed a resolution disallowing the inclusion of the amount in the municipal budget. No ordinance appropriating the amount was ever enacted. The treasurer's continued refusal led to this petition for mandamus.

Issues

• Whether or not a judgment against the mayor in a mandamus proceeding is deemed a judgment against the municipality, such that the requirement of joinder of parties was substantially complied with.
• Whether or not the municipal treasurer was justified in refusing to pay the vouchers absent an appropriation ordinance.
• Whether or not mandamus lies to compel the treasurer to pay the back salaries.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2296 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

In this jurisdiction, all municipal legislation creating liability should be embodied in an appropriation ordinance.

This is the provision the Court uses to hold that the council's resolutions, being mere proposals, created no enforceable liability.

Section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

The disbursements of municipal funds shall be made by the municipal treasurer, upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget.

This fixes the treasurer's duty as one dischargeable only pursuant to a budget, which was absent here.

The Constitution provides:

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

This constitutional command reinforces that payment without appropriation is unlawful.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement of joinder of parties had been substantially complied with. It relied on its earlier ruling in the Mangubat case, where, although the city had not been formally made a party, the Court considered its inclusion a mere formality and deemed it effected, reasoning that it would be subordinating substance to form to dismiss or remand for a repetition of proceedings in order to reach the same result. The Court noted that this case was an offshoot of a mandamus proceeding against the incumbent mayor in his capacity as such, and that the municipality is presumed to have taken steps to contest the claim.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the treasurer was justified in refusing payment. The resolutions were, at most, proposals to have the amount included in forthcoming budgets. The Court explained that a resolution is ordinarily a declaration of a council evincing some purpose or intent to do some act, not the doing of the act itself. It is merely an intention, and to become effectual it must be expressed by legislative enactment, that is, by ordinance. Not only was there no appropriation ordinance, but the council itself subsequently disallowed the inclusion of the amount in the budget.

On the third issue, the Court held that mandamus does not lie. The writ will not issue unless the act desired is of absolute obligation on the part of the person sought to be coerced; the relator must show a clear legal right; the act must not only be in the respondent's power to do but must be his duty to do; the duty must be plain and positive. It is not the legal duty of the treasurer to honor the vouchers without a budget or appropriation ordinance setting aside the funds, enacted in accordance with law.

Doctrine

A resolution is a mere declaration of intention; it does not create a liability. Under Section 2296 of the Revised Administrative Code, all municipal legislation creating liability must be embodied in an appropriation ordinance. Under Section 2300, municipal disbursements must be made pursuant to the budget, and under the Constitution no money may be paid out except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right and a duty that is plain and positive; it will not issue to compel payment of back salaries where no appropriation ordinance exists. A judgment against a mayor in his capacity as such may be treated as a judgment against the municipality where joinder was substantially complied with.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the case, reserving to the policemen the right to take the appropriate action, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a resolution expresses an intention, but only an appropriation ordinance creates a liability and a duty that mandamus can enforce. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a resolution and an ordinance, and the requisites of mandamus against a municipal treasurer.