QUINTIN RIVERA, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. HON. CIPRIANO B. COLAGO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

“PREMISES
CONSIDERED, this Court finds and so declares that the petitioners
herein are entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly this Court
orders the respondent City Mayor, City Treasurer and the members of the
Municipal Board, all of the City of San Pablo, to pay, within 90 days
from the finality of this judgment, to the petitioners herein the
amounts to which they are respectively entitled by way of differential
salaries covering the period from August 4, 1952 to May 14, 1953 as
shown in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” as corrected.

“The claim of petitioners for attorney’s fees and damages is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

“After
the obligation to the herein petitioners shall have been duly complied
with by the respondents, the latter are advised in order to avoid
further litigation on the matter, to pay likewise the differential
salaries of all other employees who are entitled to the same but have
not joined the herein petition.

“Let copy of this Decision be personally served upon all the respondents herein.

“So ordered. Without pronouncement as to costs.”

Appellees commenced this action for mandamus against the City Mayor,
the City Treasurer and the Municipal Board of the City of San Pablo,
Laguna, to compel them to pay the difference between their respective
salaries and that provided by the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No.
602) for the period from August 4, 1952 to May 14, 1953, and to recover
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Appellants’ main defenses
were, firstly, that their failure to provide for the payment of the
differential salaries was due to lack of funds, and secondly, that
mandamus does not lie against them for the reason that they had not
unlawfully neglected to comply with their duty in connection with
appellees’ claim.

It is not denied that appellees were
employees of the City of San Pablo during the period from August 4,
1952 to May 14, 1953 at salaries lower than P120.00 monthly; that they
are covered by the provisions of Republic Act No. 602, commonly known
as the Minimum Wage Law, which took effect on August 4, 1952; that the
City of San Pablo implemented the provisions of the Act referred to
only on May 15, 1953; that appellees have not received to this date
differentia) salaries in the amounts stated in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”
and “D”; and lastly, that certain officials of the City of San Pablo
had been paid their differential salaries prior to the commencement of
this action.

As correctly stated by the lower court, the
issue involved herein is whether or not, upon the facts of the case,
mandamus lies against appellants. This question, in our opinion, has
been decided—at least in principle—in the affirmative in Bernardo et
al. vs. Pascual, et al., 93 Phil., 345; 49 Off. Gaz., No. 6, p. 2261; and Guerrero, et al. vs.
Carbonel, et al, G.R. No. L-7180, “March 15, 1955. Both cases were for
mandamus to compel payment of increased salaries pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act No. 732. In granting the writ this Court
said, inter alia, that the therein respondents, as government
officials, were duty bound to implement the provisions of Act No. 732
by appropriating the necessary amounts for the payment of the increased
salaries of the therein petitioners, and that such appropriation could
not be left at their discretion nor could they avoid compliance with
their duty by invoking lack of funds. While in said cases there was
proof of proper certification of availability of funds—which is lacking
in the present—we believe that the principle laid down in the aforesaid
eases applies to the present considering the circumstance that other
employees of the same city had been paid their differential salaries
prior to the commencement of the present action. Were we to consider a
claim of lack or insufficiency of funds as sufficient to justify
refusal to implement the provisions of Act 732, the latter would become
futile, with its purpose defeated.

Considering that the
provisions of the law invoked by appellees are mandatory, and it
appearing that they have no other remedy in the ordinary course of law
we are of the opinion, and so hold, that appellants may be compelled by
mandamus to comply with their ministerial duty to appropriate the
necessary funds for the payment of the differential salaries
respectively claimed by appellees.

Wherefore, the appealed decision being in accordance with the facts and the law, the same is hereby affirmed.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.